Jackson v. Pletcher et al

Filing 169

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/19/12 ORDERING that Plaintiffs request 167 to continue the hearing date on the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Osman, Aguilera, and Bick, is GRANTED. Absent further order of this court, the hearing on the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Osman, Aguilera, and Bick 163 is rescheduled for Thursday, January 31, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 25. Plaintiff shall file and serve his opposition to the subject motion on or before January 17, 2013. Defendants may file and serve a reply brief on or before January 24, 2013.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RAYMOND D. JACKSON, 11 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, No. 2: 11-cv-1157 JAM KJN P vs. STEVEN FLETCHER, et al., Defendants. ORDER / 16 Plaintiff’s appointed counsel has filed an ex parte request to continue the hearing 17 date on the motion for summary judgment filed December 6, 2012, by defendants Osman, Bick 18 and Aguilera, from January 10, 2013, to January 31, 2013. Plaintiff’s counsel states that 19 defendants’ counsel denied his request to stipulate to a continuation of the hearing. (See n.1, 20 infra.) Absent continuation of the hearing, plaintiff’s opposition is due by December 27, 2012. 21 Plaintiff’s counsel requests that the subject hearing be continued because 22 defendants’ motion is voluminous and involves complex legal issues; counsel is representing 23 plaintiff on a pro bono basis and has limited available resources to conduct the research 24 necessary to prepare an adequate response to defendants’ motion, particularly during this holiday 25 season; counsel is securing the services of a third year law student to assist in this case, but the 26 student is not available until January 6, 2013. 1 1 Also pending in this action is a motion to stay filed by defendant Pletcher. (Dkt. 2 No. 162.) Plaintiff has timely filed an opposition to that motion (Dkt. No. 164), while defendants 3 Osman, Aguilera, and Bick have filed a statement of non-opposition “provided” the court first 4 decides their motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 166). A hearing on defendant Pletcher’s 5 motion to stay is scheduled before the undersigned on January 3, 2013. One additional defendant 6 in this action, defendant Hall, does not appear to be participating in the presently pending 7 matters. 8 9 The court does not perceive the urgency in hearing defendants’ motion for summary judgment.1 The current deadline for hearing dispositive motions is March 6, 2013. 10 (Dkt. No. 158.) Moreover, the court has not yet determined whether a stay should be entered in 11 this action and, if so, whether it should be limited to defendant Pletcher. The availability and 12 resources of pro bono counsel are relevant considerations that support plaintiff’s instant request. 13 14 Accordingly, for good cause shown, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 16 1. Plaintiff’s request (Dkt. No. 167) to continue the hearing date on the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Osman, Aguilera, and Bick, is granted. 17 2. Absent further order of this court, the hearing on the motion for summary 18 judgment filed by defendants Osman, Aguilera, and Bick (Dkt. No. 163), is rescheduled for 19 Thursday, January 31, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 25. 20 //// 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 The motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Osman, Aguilera, and Bick is premised on the alleged failure of plaintiff to exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff states that counsel for these defendants refused to stipulate to a continuation of the hearing on this motion because, if the motion is denied, counsel intends to file a subsequent motion for summary judgment on the merits of plaintiff’s claims, within the court’s current deadlines. (Dkt. No. 1671 at 2, ¶ 6.) The court notes, without further comment at the present time, that the proper method for asserting a failure to exhaust administrative remedies is generally an “unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion,” and the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003), not a preliminary or contingent motion for summary judgment. 2 1 2 3. Plaintiff shall file and serve his opposition to the subject motion on or before January 17, 2013. 3 4. Defendants may file and serve a reply brief on or before January 24, 2013. 4 SO ORDERED. 5 DATED: December 19, 2012 6 7 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 jack1157.eot.msj 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?