(PC)Figueroa v. Clark et al

Filing 85

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
1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

RUBEN FIGUEROA,

10

Case No. 1:19-cv-00968-ADA-BAM (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE
(ECF No. 82)

Defendants.

15

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND
TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 83)

16

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

11
12
13
14

v.
CLARK, et al.,

17
18

Plaintiff Ruben Figueroa (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

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

20

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Baughman, Clark, Gallagher, Alfaro,

21

Goss, Juarez, Hence, and Llamas for failure to provide outside exercise in violation of the Eighth

22

Amendment and against Defendants Baughman, Clark, Goss, Hence, Gallagher, Llamas, and

23

Gamboa for violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

24

On December 2, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds

25

that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

26

(ECF No. 80.) Plaintiff’s opposition was due on or before December 27, 2022.

27
28

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
1

Case 1:19-cv-00968-ADA-BAM Document 85 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2
1
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

3

Enlargement of Time, 30 Days, filed January 13, 2023. (ECF No. 83.) Plaintiff states that he

4

moved from his transition home to his new home and has not received any mail since the first

5

week of December 2022, and has only just received Defendants’ motion for summary judgment

6

from December 2, 2022. Plaintiff contends that there are genuine issues of material fact within

7

his claims, and due to his move he requires an extension of time to oppose Defendants’ motion

8

for summary judgment. (Id.)

9
10
11

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

12

new mailing address present good cause to grant the requested extension. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b).

13

The order to show cause will be discharged. The Court finds that an extension of thirty days is

14

appropriate under the circumstances, and further finds that Defendants will not be prejudiced by

15

the brief extension granted here.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

17

1. The January 11, 2023 order to show cause, (ECF No. 82), is DISCHARGED;

18

2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, (ECF No. 83), is GRANTED;

19

3. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is due within thirty

20
21
22

(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.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

January 17, 2023

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2