Villery v. California Department of Corrections, et al.
Filing
130
ORDER GRANTING 129 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/16/19. (Due: 06/19/2019) (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JARED M. VILLERY,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
v.
CALIFORNIA DEP’T OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00987-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY
MOTION TO MODIFY PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
(ECF No. 129)
Defendants.
16
Defendants’ Response Due: June 19, 2019
17
18
19
Plaintiff Jared M. Villery (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
20
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds
21
on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants Kendall, Acosta, Naficy, Jones, Guerrero, Aithal,
22
Seymour, Carrizales, Woodard, Pallares, Hernandez, Fisher, Grimmig, and Miranda for deliberate
23
indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendants Beard and Diaz for
24
promulgation of a policy to deny single cell housing for inmates with serious mental disorders, in
25
violation of the Eighth Amendment. The case arises out of Plaintiff’s allegations concerning
26
allegedly improper housing decisions for Plaintiff, who suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress
27
Disorder (“PTSD”).
28
///
1
1
On February 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking an
2
order directing the Secretary of CDCR to house him in a single-occupancy cell. (ECF No. 62.)
3
On November 30, 2018, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations, recommending
4
that Plaintiff’s motion be granted in part. (ECF No. 111.) Those findings and recommendations
5
were adopted in part, and the District Judge ordered that the McCall Report be placed in
6
Plaintiff’s health record and that Defendant Diaz ensure that an immediate review be undertaken
7
to determine whether Plaintiff’s condition requires that he be designated for single-cell status in
8
light of the McCall Report. (ECF No. 123.) Defendants filed a notice of compliance with the
9
Court’s order on April 19, 2019. (ECF No. 126.)
10
On May 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the preliminary injunction. (ECF No.
11
128.) Defendants’ response is currently due on or before June 5, 2019.1 Currently before the
12
Court is Defendants’ request for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s motion, together
13
with a declaration of counsel, filed May 16, 2019. (ECF No. 129.) Although Plaintiff has not had
14
an opportunity to respond to Defendants’ request, the Court finds a response unnecessary, and the
15
motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
The declaration in support of Defendants’ application explains that defense counsel will
16
17
be unavailable from May 20 through May 30, 2019 and attending a mandatory statewide section
18
meeting on June 4 and June 5, 2019, leaving only a few days to review the 127-page motion and
19
compile a response. (ECF No. 129.) As noted in the declaration, defense counsel previously
20
alerted both Plaintiff and the Court of her upcoming unavailability during the month of May.
21
(ECF No. 121.) Defendants therefore request a fourteen-day extension of the current deadline to
22
allow counsel time to properly address Plaintiff’s motion.
23
Having considered the request, the Court finds good cause to modify the briefing schedule
24
in this matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). The Court further finds that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced
25
by the brief extension granted here.
26
27
28
1
Although the docket entry is dated May 14, 2019, the motion was not entered on the docket and electronically
served on Defendants until May 15, 2019. Therefore, Defendants’ response is not due until twenty-one days after
May 15, 2019. See Local Rule 230(l).
2
1
Accordingly, Defendants’ request for an extension of time, (ECF No. 129), is GRANTED.
2
Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s emergency motion to modify the preliminary injunction is due
3
on or before June 19, 2019.
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
May 16, 2019
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?