Rivers v. King et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:15-cv-00276-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST FOR COURT TO DEFER
CONSIDERING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
JAGSIR SANDHU, et al.,
(ECF No. 35)
SIXTY (60) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Steve Rivers (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s
second amended complaint against Defendants Nguyen, Sandhu, and Lopez for violations of the
Fourteenth Amendment in connection with his February 2013 infection. (ECF No. 14.)
On March 15, 2017, Defendants filed a request for an extension of time to file dispositive
motions and to re-open discovery for the limited purpose of deposing Plaintiff. (ECF No. 30.)
The Court granted the motion, setting the new deadline for dispositive motions and discovery for
July 14, 2017. (ECF No. 33.) On April 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment.
(ECF No. 34.) Defendants’ opposition is due by May 15, 2017. Local Rule 230(l).
On April 25, 2017, Defendants filed the instant request for the court to defer considering
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 35.) Defendants also filed a declaration of
counsel in support of the request. Although Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to respond to
Defendants’ request, the Court finds a response unnecessary. Local Rule 230(l).
The declaration in support of Defendants’ request explains that Defendants have not had
an opportunity to notice Plaintiff’s deposition or to develop a factual basis to oppose Plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment. Counsel states that he intends to notice Plaintiff’s deposition
within the next 30 days, and to file an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion and Defendants’ own
motion for summary judgment within the next 60 days. (ECF No. 35.)
The Court will construe the request as a motion for extension of time to file an opposition
to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Having considered the request, the Court finds good
cause to modify the briefing schedule in this matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(d)(2). The Court further finds that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the extension of time
Accordingly, Defendants’ request for the court to defer considering Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment, (ECF No. 35), is GRANTED. Defendants shall file an opposition, if any, to
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment within sixty (60) days from the date of service of this
order. Plaintiff shall file a reply, if any, within seven (7) days from the date of service
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 1, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?