Caputo v. Kern County Sheriff's Office

Filing 179

ORDER RE: Plaintiff's Response to Motion by Defendant Michelle Black for Leave to File a Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 06/11/2019. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

BRIAN CAPUTO,

11
12
13

Case No. 1:15-cv-01008-LJO-EPG (PC)
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO
MOTION BY DEFENDANT MICHELLE
BLACK FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff,
v.
GONZALES, et al.,

14

(ECF NO. 178)

Defendants.

15
16
17

Brian Caputo (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner1 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

18

On May 23, 2019, defendant Black filed a motion for leave to file a motion for

19

summary judgment. (ECF No. 173). Finding good cause to modify the schedule, on May 30,

20

2019, the Court granted defendant Black two weeks to file a motion for summary judgment.

21

(ECF No. 177).

22

On June 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a response to defendant Black’s motion, arguing that

23

defendant Black should not be permitted to file a motion for summary judgment at this time.

24

(ECF No. 178).

25

While the Court already granted Defendant’s motion, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s

26

response and it does not change the Court’s analysis. Plaintiff argues that the delay was not his

27
1

28

Plaintiff was detained at Kern County Jail at the time of the incidents alleged in the complaint. He is
now incarcerated at USP Yazoo City.
1

1

fault, and he appears to be correct. However, the delay does not have to be Plaintiff’s fault for

2

there to be good cause to modify the schedule. The legal question is whether it is Defendant

3

Black’s fault for not filing the motion earlier, and even Plaintiff agrees it is not.

4

As to Plaintiff’s argument that defendant Black is not entitled to summary judgment, he

5

will have the opportunity to make those arguments in response to defendant Black’s motion for

6

summary judgment.

7

The Court notes that the trial date remains as previously set.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 11, 2019

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2