Rivers v. King et al

Filing 36

ORDER Granting Defendant's 35 Request for Court to Defer Considering Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/1/17. Sixty-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STEVE RIVERS,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Case No. 1:15-cv-00276-LJO-BAM (PC)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST FOR COURT TO DEFER
CONSIDERING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

JAGSIR SANDHU, et al.,
(ECF No. 35)
Defendants.
SIXTY (60) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Steve Rivers (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s

19

second amended complaint against Defendants Nguyen, Sandhu, and Lopez for violations of the

20

Fourteenth Amendment in connection with his February 2013 infection. (ECF No. 14.)

21

On March 15, 2017, Defendants filed a request for an extension of time to file dispositive

22

motions and to re-open discovery for the limited purpose of deposing Plaintiff. (ECF No. 30.)

23

The Court granted the motion, setting the new deadline for dispositive motions and discovery for

24

July 14, 2017. (ECF No. 33.) On April 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment.

25

(ECF No. 34.) Defendants’ opposition is due by May 15, 2017. Local Rule 230(l).

26

On April 25, 2017, Defendants filed the instant request for the court to defer considering

27

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 35.) Defendants also filed a declaration of

28

counsel in support of the request. Although Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to respond to
1

1

Defendants’ request, the Court finds a response unnecessary. Local Rule 230(l).

2

The declaration in support of Defendants’ request explains that Defendants have not had

3

an opportunity to notice Plaintiff’s deposition or to develop a factual basis to oppose Plaintiff’s

4

motion for summary judgment. Counsel states that he intends to notice Plaintiff’s deposition

5

within the next 30 days, and to file an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion and Defendants’ own

6

motion for summary judgment within the next 60 days. (ECF No. 35.)

7

The Court will construe the request as a motion for extension of time to file an opposition

8

to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Having considered the request, the Court finds good

9

cause to modify the briefing schedule in this matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Fed. R. Civ. P.

10

56(d)(2). The Court further finds that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the extension of time

11

requested here.

12

Accordingly, Defendants’ request for the court to defer considering Plaintiff’s motion for

13

summary judgment, (ECF No. 35), is GRANTED. Defendants shall file an opposition, if any, to

14

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment within sixty (60) days from the date of service of this

15

order. Plaintiff shall file a reply, if any, within seven (7) days from the date of service

16

Defendants’ opposition.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

May 1, 2017

A. McAuliffe

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2