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)

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