Smith v. Goss, et al.

Filing 54

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 49 Request for Extension of Time to Oppose Plaintiff's Motions Nunc Pro Tunc; ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 52 Motion for 30-Day Extension of Time to File Reply Re: Motion to Amend the Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/31/2020. ( Reply due within THIRTY (30) DAYS.) (Orozco, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
CHANELO, et al.,

Case No. 1:16-cv-01356-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS NUNC
PRO TUNC
(ECF No. 49)

17

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE REPLY RE: MOTION TO AMEND THE
COMPLAINT
(ECF No. 52)

18

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

15

Defendants.

16

19
20

Plaintiff Lawrence Christopher Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se

21

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

22

currently proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint for claims of excessive force against

23

Defendants Sotelo, Chanelo, Wattree, Hunt, Castro, Gonzalez, Ramirez, and Rodriguez, related to

24

events of March 13, 2013.

25

On December 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint and a motion for

26

joinder of claims, together with a lodged proposed amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 45, 46, 47.)

27

On January 2, 2020, Defendants filed a request for a fourteen-day extension of time to oppose

28

Plaintiff’s motions. (ECF No. 49.) On January 15, 2020, before the Court had ruled on the
1

1

request for an extension of time, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiff’s motions. (ECF

2

No. 50.)
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a thirty-day extension of time to file a

3
4

reply to Defendant’s opposition, filed January 27, 2020. (ECF No. 52.) On January 29, 2020,

5

Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time. (ECF No.

6

53.)

7

In light of Plaintiff’s apparent non-opposition to Defendants’ original request for

8

extension of time, and Defendants’ non-opposition to Plaintiff’s request, the Court finds good

9

cause to modify the briefing schedule in this matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b).

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

11

1. Defendants’ request for extension of time to oppose Plaintiff’s motions, (ECF No. 49),

12

is GRANTED, nunc pro tunc;

13

2. Defendant’s opposition, filed January 15, 2020, is deemed timely filed;

14

3. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a reply in support of his pending

15

motion for joinder of claims and motion to amend the complaint, (ECF No. 52), is

16

GRANTED; and

17

4. Plaintiff shall file his reply within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this

18

order.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

January 31, 2020

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2