Gomez v. McDonald et al

Filing 81

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/5/2015 GRANTING defendants' 80 motion for a 60-day extension of time; defendants shall file any reply in support of their motion for summary judgment and an opposition to plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on or before 5/1/2015; and defendants' 55 motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal, as appropriate, by defendants with any reply and their opposition to plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALFREDO GOMEZ,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:11-cv-0649 KJM DAD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

MIKE McDONALD et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks relief
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On March 21, 2014, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 55)

20

Thereafter, on April 2, 2014, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to modify the court’s discovery

21

and scheduling order and granted him additional time to complete discovery and file a motion to

22

compel. (Doc. No. 58) The court also relieved plaintiff of having to file an opposition to

23

defendants’ motion for summary judgment until after the court had ruled on plaintiff’s motion to

24

compel. (Id.) On May 2, 2014, plaintiff filed his motion to compel, and after the court granted

25

several extensions of time, defendants filed an opposition to that motion. Plaintiff also filed a

26

reply in support of his motion to compel. (Doc. Nos. 59-62 & 64-69) On January 29, 2015, the

27

undersigned granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to compel and also ordered him

28

to file an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 74) Plaintiff has

1
2

filed his opposition and a cross-motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 74)
On March 2, 2015, defendants filed a motion seeking a sixty-day extension of time to file

3

a reply in support of their motion for summary judgment and an opposition to plaintiff’s cross-

4

motion for summary judgment. Good cause appearing, the court will grant defendants’ request.

5

In addition, however, due to considerations of judicial economy and the extended time required

6

for briefing by the parties, the court at this time will deny defendants’ March 21, 2014 motion for

7

summary judgment without prejudice to its renewal by defendants at the time they file their reply

8

in support of their own motion for summary judgment and their opposition to plaintiff’s cross-

9

motion for summary judgment. In order to renew their motion for summary judgment as that

10

time, defendants need only file a notice of renewal of their motion for summary judgment.

11

Defendants do not need to refile any of the documents filed with the March 21, 2014 motion for

12

summary judgment. If defendants file a notice of renewal, the parties’ cross-motions for

13

summary judgment will be deemed submitted for findings and recommendations after plaintiff

14

files a reply brief in support of his cross-motion for summary judgment or upon expiration of the

15

time to do so.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1. Defendants’ motion for a sixty-day extension of time (Doc. No. 80) is granted;

18

2. Defendants shall file any reply in support of their motion for summary judgment and

19

an opposition to plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on or before May 1, 2015; and

20

3. Defendants’ March 21, 2014 motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 55) is denied

21

without prejudice to its renewal, as appropriate, by defendants with any reply and their opposition

22

to plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment.

23

Dated: March 5, 2015

24
25

DAD:9
gome0649.36reply

26
27
28
2