Madden v. Hicks et al

Filing 42

ORDER GRANTING 40 Defendants' Request for Extension of Time to File a Reply in Support of 31 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/12/2020. Reply due by 11/24/2020. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

MICHAEL MADDEN, Successor-inInterest to Ryan P. Madden, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17

v.
HICKS, et al.,

Case No. 1:18-cv-00255-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE A REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
(ECF No. 40)

Defendants.

Reply Deadline: November 24, 2020

Plaintiffs Michael Madden and Kathy Madden, as Successors-in-Interest to Ryan P.

18

Madden, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) are proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

19

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendant Hicks for

20

excessive force and assault and battery claims, and against Defendants Silva and Hicks for

21

California Bane Act and retaliation claims.

22

On July 15, 2020, Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss the state law claims against

23

both Defendants and the Bane Act and First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendant

24

Silva. (ECF No. 31.) Following two extensions of time, Plaintiffs filed their opposition on

25

November 2, 2020. (ECF No. 37.) As the opposition was not docketed until November 3, 2020,

26

Defendants’ reply is therefore due on or before November 10, 2020.

27
28

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to file a reply,
filed November 10, 2020. (ECF No. 40.) Although Plaintiffs have not had an opportunity to
1

1

respond to Defendants’ motion, the Court finds a response unnecessary. Local Rule 230(l).

2

A declaration of counsel filed in support of the request states that defense counsel is

3

currently preparing a reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition. (ECF No. 40.) However, due to the recent

4

press of business in other cases, he was prevented from completing and filing Defendants’ reply.

5

Counsel requests an extension of fourteen days, up to and including November 24, 2020, to

6

complete drafting Defendants’ reply and to have the draft reviewed by his supervising attorney.

7

(Id.) It does not appear that Defendant attempted to confer with Plaintiffs before filing the

8

request.

9

Having considered the request, the Court finds good cause to modify the briefing schedule

10

in this matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). The Court further finds that Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced

11

by the brief extension of time requested here. However, as it appears that defense counsel has

12

previously communicated with Plaintiffs by telephone regarding Plaintiffs’ requests for

13

extensions of deadlines, the Court notes that in the future, defense counsel should also attempt to

14

confer with Plaintiffs before filing such requests.

15

Accordingly, Defendants’ request for an extension of time to file a reply in support of

16

Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 40), is HEREBY GRANTED. Defendants shall file a

17

reply on or before November 24, 2020.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

November 12, 2020

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2