Grabek v. Dickinson et al

Filing 28

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 09/08/11 ORDERING that plf's 27 Motion for Clarification is GRANTED to the extent provided in the order, but the 27 Motion for Extension of Time is DENIED for lack of good cause. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CHRISTOPHER GRABEK,

11
12

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-10-2892 WBS GGH P

vs.

13

KATHLEEN DICKINSON, Warden, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

ORDER
/

By order, filed on July 26, 2011, plaintiff’s request for a 90-day extension of time

17

was denied because plaintiff simply made an inadequate indication as to why any such time

18

extension was needed. Subsequently, plaintiff has filed another request for a time extension

19

request, along with a request for a clarification of the order of July 26, 2011, once again without

20

expressly identifying why he needs such an extension at this time. The court cannot be any

21

clearer than to say that seeking a time extension without identifying why one is needed is simply

22

insufficient, even when plaintiff is in administrative segregation. There is no motion filed by

23

defendants requiring a response from plaintiff at this time. While the discovery deadline of

24

September 23, 2011 (also noted in the prior order) is approaching, plaintiff makes no reference to

25

any intention to bring a motion to compel discovery, but simply announces an unspecified need

26

for a time extension on the basis that he will be in ad seg until late October, 2011.

1

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for clarification, filed on

2

September 1, 2011 (docket # 27), is granted to the extent provided herein, but his motion for an

3

extension of time (docket # 27) is again denied for lack of good cause.

4

DATED: September 8, 2011

5

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

GGH:009
grab2892.ord