Morris v. Bradford et al
Filing
82
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 10/31/16 ordering plaintiff' s motion to vacate all order and issue a temporary stay of proceedings 76 is granted in part and denied in part. The findings and recommendations issued on 5/11/1 6 75 are vacated. Plaintiff has failed to show good cause to stay these proceedings. His request for a stay is therefore denied. Plaintiff shall file any opposition to defendants' 1/14/16 motion for summary judgment within 30 days of the filed date of this order. No further extensions of time to file the opposition will be granted. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LEON E. MORRIS,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:11-cv-1171 TLN DB P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
A.J.R. BRADFORD, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On
18
January 14, 2016, defendants moved for summary judgment. On February 12, 2016, plaintiff was
19
granted an extension of time to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. On April
20
21, 2016, the court noted that plaintiff had failed to file an opposition and gave plaintiff an
21
additional fourteen days. Plaintiff was warned that failure to file an opposition within that time
22
period “shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.” (ECF No. 74.) On May
23
11, 2016, the magistrate judge then presiding recommended that this action be dismissed due to
24
plaintiff’s failure to file a timely opposition to the summary judgment motion.
25
On July 13, 2016, plaintiff filed a “Motion to Vacate all Orders and Issue a Temporary
26
Stay of Proceedings.” Therein, plaintiff states that he did not receive the court’s orders dated
27
April 21 or the court’s findings and recommendations dated May 11. He explains that he was
28
hospitalized from March 17, 2016 through June 20, 2016 and did not have his legal materials
1
1
2
while there. A copy of the hospital discharge sheet is attached to plaintiff’s July 13 motion.
Defendants oppose the motion to vacate and oppose any further extensions of time. (ECF
3
No. 78.) Defendants show that during the period of his hospitalization, plaintiff was able to file
4
documents in two other cases.
5
Plaintiff has shown that he was hospitalized during the period of time that the court issued
6
its April 21 order and May 11 findings and recommendations. Plaintiff filed the motion to vacate
7
shortly after being released from the hospital. While the court recognizes that plaintiff may have
8
been able to keep up with some legal work, the court finds plaintiff’s explanation provides good
9
cause for one additional opportunity to file an opposition to defendants’ motion. However,
10
plaintiff is warned that failure to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment within
11
the time provided will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.
12
Accordingly, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
13
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate all Orders and Issue a Temporary Stay of Proceedings
14
(ECF No. 76) is granted in part and denied in part.
15
a. The findings and recommendations issued on May 11, 2016 (ECF No. 75) are
16
17
18
19
vacated.
b. Plaintiff has failed to show good cause to stay these proceedings. His request for a
stay is therefore denied.
2. Plaintiff shall file any opposition to defendants' January 14, 2016 Motion for
20
Summary Judgment within thirty (30) days of the filed date of this order. No further
21
extensions of time to file the opposition will be granted. If plaintiff fails to timely file
22
the opposition, this court will recommend dismissal of this action without prejudice.
23
Dated: October 31, 2016
24
25
26
27
28
2
1
2
DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/morr1171.sj opp eot
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?