Holguin v. Wicks

Filing 67

ORDER GRANTING In Part Plaintiff's 65 Motion for 60-Day Extension of Time to File Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; ORDER GRANTING In Part Plaintiff's 66 Motion for 60-Day Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/21/18. Thirty Day Deadline. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PABLO HOLGUIN,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

WICKS,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18
19

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR 60-DAY EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 65)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR 60-DAY EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 66)
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

20
21

Case No. 1:16-cv-00346-DAD-BAM (PC)

Plaintiff Pablo Holguin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

22

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on

23

Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Defendant Wicks based on the

24

alleged denial of Plaintiff’s right to call an identified witness in his defense at his prison

25

disciplinary hearing.

26

On August 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 61.) On

27

August 31, 2018, Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, as well as his own motion

28

for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 62, 63.) Plaintiff’s reply to Defendant’s opposition was
1

1

therefore due on or before September 10, 2018, and his opposition to Defendant’s motion for

2

summary judgment is due on or before September 24, 2018.

3

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s requests for 60-day extensions of time to file his

4

opposition and reply, filed September 20, 2018. (ECF Nos. 65, 66.) As Plaintiff has stated that

5

he did not receive Defendant’s filings until September 11, 2018, the Court will accept both

6

motions as timely.

7

In his motions, Plaintiff argues that he requires additional time to file his opposition and

8

reply because of limited access to the facility law library and its computers. Plaintiff states that

9

he has no practical legal experience or computer training, and relies on other non-lawyer inmates

10

for assistance in conducting legal research, brief writing, and typing. (Id.) Although Defendant

11

has not had an opportunity to file a response, the Court finds a response is unnecessary, and the

12

motions are deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

13
14
15
16

Having considered the requests, and good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s motions for
extension of time, (ECF Nos. 65, 66), are HEREBY GRANTED IN PART, as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 63), is due
within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order; and

17

2. Plaintiff’s reply to Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment,

18

(ECF No. 62), is due within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

September 21, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2