Perrotte v. Johnson et al

Filing 90

ORDER Denying as Moot Plaintiff's 86 Motion for a Court Order to Serve Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Plaintiff's 88 Requests for an Extension of Time to File an Opposition signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 07/21/2017. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY P. PERROTTE, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. STACEY JOHNSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:15-cv-00026-LJO-SAB (PC) ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A COURT ORDER TO SERVE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN OPPOSITION [ECF Nos. 86, 87, 88, 89] Plaintiff Jeffrey P. Perrotte is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On June 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court order Defendants to serve a 20 copy of their motion for summary judgment filed on May 5, 2017. On this same date, Defendants 21 filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. 22 On July 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to 23 Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment. On July 20, 2017, Defendants filed an 24 opposition. 25 On May 5, 2017, Defendants Stacey Johnson and Jean LeFlore filed a motion for summary 26 judgment. On June 1, 2017, Defendants filed a declaration in lieu of a reply because Plaintiff did not 27 file an opposition. 28 1 1 In his June 20, 2017, motion, Plaintiff contends that he never received a copy of Defendants’ 2 motion for summary judgment. Defendants submit and attached a proof of service to the motion for 3 summary judgment demonstrating that Plaintiff was properly served at his address of record. (ECF 4 Nos. 79, 81-85, 87.) Defendants further submit that on June 20, 2017, at the request of Plaintiff, they 5 forwarded Plaintiff a courtesy copy of the motion for summary judgment on. In his July 20, 2017, motion, Plaintiff indicates that he has now received a copy of Defendants’ 6 7 motion for summary judgment and requests an extension of time to file an opposition. Although the record does support Defendants’ contention that their motion for summary 8 9 judgment was properly served on Plaintiff at his address of record, given that Plaintiff is proceeding 10 pro se and is incarcerated, the Court will grant Plaintiff an extension of time to file an opposition to 11 Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment. 12 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. 14 summary judgment is denied as moot; and 2. 15 16 Plaintiff’s motion for a court order providing him a copy of Defendants’ motion for Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: 20 July 21, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?