Johnson v. Mitchell et al

Filing 267

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/16/13 ORDERING that Plaintiff's Request 266 to exceed the 25 page limit imposed by the 3/2/12 order is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SHEPARD JOHNSON

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

No. 2:10-cv-1968 GEB GGH PS

vs.

ORDER

CHESTER MITCHELL, et al.,
Defendants.
/

15
16

Pending before the undersigned and currently set for hearing on January 31, 2013

17

is defendants’ motion for summary judgment (dkt. 245), plaintiff’s motion for summary

18

judgment (dkt. 258), and defendant Berrocal and Arosemena’s motion to dismiss for lack of

19

personal jurisdiction (dkt. 229). Plaintiff is subject to a 25 page limit on any filing he enters in

20

this matter. Dkt. 169. The court granted plaintiff relief from and extended that limit to 35 pages

21

for purposes of filing his opposition to and cross-motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 256.

22

Plaintiff now seeks additional relief from the 25 page limit in responding to defendant Berrocal

23

and Arosemena’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. 266.

24

Plaintiff claims that he will require approximately 35 pages in which to address

25

the arguments raised in the motion to dismiss. Id. Although plaintiff is correct in pointing out

26

that defendants Berrocal and Arosemena raise a total of ten arguments between them, he ignores
1

1

that they have done so in a motion limited to 12 pages. Dkt. 229. Plaintiff has not explained

2

why his response to such a motion will require nearly three times as much space as the motion

3

itself and the court cannot imagine that it will.

4

Accordingly, plaintiff’s request (dkt. 266) to exceed the 25 page limit imposed by

5

the March 2, 2012 order is HEREBY DENIED.

6

DATED: January 16, 2013

7
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
ggh9

13
Johnson1968pglimitext

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2