(PC)Figueroa v. Clark et al
ORDER Discharging 82 Order to Show Cause Why Action Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute and ORDER GRANTING 83 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/17/2023. Response to MSJ due within thirty (30) days. (Lawrence, A)
Case 1:19-cv-00968-ADA-BAM Document 85 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:19-cv-00968-ADA-BAM (PC)
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO
(ECF No. 82)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND
TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
(ECF No. 83)
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
CLARK, et al.,
Plaintiff Ruben Figueroa (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on
Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Baughman, Clark, Gallagher, Alfaro,
Goss, Juarez, Hence, and Llamas for failure to provide outside exercise in violation of the Eighth
Amendment and against Defendants Baughman, Clark, Goss, Hence, Gallagher, Llamas, and
Gamboa for violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
On December 2, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds
that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
(ECF No. 80.) Plaintiff’s opposition was due on or before December 27, 2022.
After Plaintiff failed to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment, on January
11, 2023, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause within twenty-one days why this
Case 1:19-cv-00968-ADA-BAM Document 85 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2
action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 82.)
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Notice of Change of Address and Motion for
Enlargement of Time, 30 Days, filed January 13, 2023. (ECF No. 83.) Plaintiff states that he
moved from his transition home to his new home and has not received any mail since the first
week of December 2022, and has only just received Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
from December 2, 2022. Plaintiff contends that there are genuine issues of material fact within
his claims, and due to his move he requires an extension of time to oppose Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment. (Id.)
Defendants have not yet had an opportunity to file a response, but the Court finds a
response is unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
Having considered the moving papers, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s recent move and
new mailing address present good cause to grant the requested extension. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b).
The order to show cause will be discharged. The Court finds that an extension of thirty days is
appropriate under the circumstances, and further finds that Defendants will not be prejudiced by
the brief extension granted here.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The January 11, 2023 order to show cause, (ECF No. 82), is DISCHARGED;
2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, (ECF No. 83), is GRANTED;
3. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is due within thirty
(30) days from the date of service of this order; and
4. Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition in compliance with this order will result in
dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 17, 2023
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?