Dickson v. Gomez et al

Filing 87

ORDER GRANTING 86 Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification and Motion for Extension of Time to Oppose Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/22/2021. Opposition due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER DICKSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

Case No. 1:17-cv-00294-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR CLARIFICATION AND MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

GOMEZ, et al.,

15

(ECF No. 86)
Defendants.
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

16
17

Plaintiff Christopher Dickson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

18

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

19

against Defendants Gomez, Rios, and Martinez for excessive force and against Defendants

20

Duncan and Esparza for violations of Plaintiff’s due process rights.

21

On November 8, 2021, Defendants Esparza and Duncan filed a motion for summary

22

judgment on the grounds that they did not violate Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process

23

rights during the Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) process for Plaintiff’s RVR for battery on a

24

peace officer at Kern Valley State Prison. (ECF No. 83.) Plaintiff’s opposition is therefore due

25

on or before December 2, 2021.

26

Currently before the Court is “Plaintiff’s Request for Clarification from Court,” filed

27

November 19, 2021. (ECF No. 86.) Plaintiff requests clarification in light of Defendants’

28

previously-filed motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion of administrative
1

1

remedies, which the Court has already resolved. Plaintiff asks whether he should, and how, this

2

new motion for summary judgment from Defendants should be responded to, and if a response is

3

required, Plaintiff requests an extension of time to do so. Plaintiff states that his current

4

institution is now on lockdown and he cannot get to the library except without a court deadline.

5

(Id.) Defendants have not yet had an opportunity to file a response, but the Court finds a response

6

is unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

7

Plaintiff’s request for clarification is granted, as follows. Plaintiff is informed that

8

Defendants are entitled to file a motion for summary judgment regarding the merits of this action,

9

even though they previously filed a motion for summary judgment regarding the issue of

10

exhaustion. Plaintiff is required to file a response, as explained in the Rand warning attached to

11

the summary judgment motion, (ECF No. 83-1), and Local Rule 260(a).

12

Having considered the moving papers, the Court finds good cause to grant the requested

13

extension. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). As Plaintiff has not requested a specific extension of time, the

14

Court finds an extension of thirty days is appropriate. The Court further finds that Defendants

15

will not be prejudiced by the brief extension granted here.

16

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for clarification and motion for extension of time, (ECF

17

No. 86), is HEREBY GRANTED. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary

18

judgment is due within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order. Defendants’ reply,

19

if any, is due no more than seven (7) days following the docketing of Plaintiff’s opposition.

20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

November 22, 2021

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2