King v. Biter et al

Filing 63

ORDER OVERRULING Plaintiff's 62 Objections to Defendants' Motion to Extend the Deadline to File an Exhaustion-Related Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/30/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY DONNELL KING, SR., 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. M.D. BITER, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:15-cv-00414-LJO-SAB (PC) ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE TO FILE AN EXHAUSTION-RELATED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF No. 62] Plaintiff Larry Donnell King, Sr. is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 29, 2017, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order. (ECF No. 62.) 21 On November 9, 2017, defense counsel filed a motion to extend the deadline to file an 22 exhaustion-related motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 58.) On November 22, 2017, the Court 23 granted Defendants’ motion based on the finding of good cause. (ECF No. 61.) The Court construes 24 Plaintiff’s opposition as an objection to the Court’s November 22, 2017 order. 25 In Defendants’ November 9, 2017 motion, defense counsel, Arthur B. Mark, III, declared that 26 during Plaintiff’s deposition he indicated that he did not have the original inmate appeal documents 27 requested by Defendants because they were sent to the United States Marshal. (Mark Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 28 No. 58-2.) Defense counsel further declared that he requested staff within his office to contact the 1 1 United States Marshal to determine if they received the original inmate appeals documents from 2 Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 4.) On October 31, 2017, Ms. T. Worthy, a Senior Legal Analyst in the Office of the 3 California Attorney General obtained a copy of the original inmate appeal documents submitted by 4 Plaintiff. (Id.) Defendants then served additional discovery on Plaintiff regarding the inmate appeals 5 obtained from the United States Marshal. (Id. ¶ 5.) The discovery responses are due December 26, 6 2017. (Id.) Defense counsel further declared other pressing matters necessitated an extension of the 7 deadline. (Id. ¶ 6.) 8 In his objections, Plaintiff argues that Defendants failed to submit a declaration of Ms. T. 9 Worthy or the United States Marshal who provided the documentation to Ms. Worthy. However, 10 defense counsel’s declaration was sufficient to support a finding of good cause to warrant an extension 11 of the deadline to file an exhaustion-related motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff’s objections 12 thereto are overruled. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Furthermore, Plaintiff is not be prejudiced by the 13 extension of time given that no other deadlines were impacted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections to 14 the Court’s November 22, 2017 order are overruled. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: 18 November 30, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 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?