Dixon v. O'Connor, et al

Filing 53

AMENDED ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lloyd D. George on 7/14/11 GRANTING 46 MOTION for 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME to File Opposition and FURTHER ORDERING that 48 Motion for Clarification is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff shall file such opposition by 7/24/11. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
DANIEL STEVE DIXON,
9
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:08-cv-01546-LDG

10
v.
11

AMENDED ORDER
J. S. O’CONNER, et. al.,

12
Defendants.
13
14
15

Plaintiff Daniel Steve Dixon has filed an unopposed motion for a 30-day extension of time

16

to file an opposition to Defendant Costales and Anderson’s motion to dismiss (#46). Plaintiff

17

timely filed his request for extension based on insufficient on-site resources at Ironwood State

18

Prison. Plaintiff has, therefore, demonstrated good cause for extending the time limit to respond to

19

Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). Plaintiff, however, incorrectly

20

requests that the 30-day extension conclude on August 24, 2011. Because Plaintiff’s original

21

deadline to submit his opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss was June 24, 2011, any 30-day

22

extension would conclude on July 24, 2011. Accordingly,

23

THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for a 30-day extension of time to

24

file his opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss (#46) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file such

25

opposition by July 24, 2011. Furthermore,

26

1
2
3

THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that Defendant’s motion for clarification (#48) is
denied as moot.
Dated this ______ day of July, 2011.

4
5
6

________________________________

7
Lloyd D. George
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2