Gibbs v. California Department of Fish and Game et al

Filing 51

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 3/2/2016 DENYING 50 Motion as to the plaintiff's request for leave to file an amended complaint; DENYING 50 Motion as to the plaintiff's request for a continuance of all deadlines; G RANTING 50 Motion as to the plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file an opposition to the 43 Motion for Summary Judgment; ORDERING the plaintiff to file his opposition within 30 days; ORDERING Defendants Boyd and Little to file any reply within 15 days after service of the plaintiff's opposition. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT ALAN GIBBS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

ORDER

BOYD, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

/

17
18

No. 2:13-CV-2631-KJM-CMK

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action. Pending before
the court is plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 50).

19

In his motion, plaintiff seeks leave to join additional defendants to this action. He

20

also seeks a “continuance on all matters pending in the court to beyond November 20th, 2016, as

21

I am currently in the Shasta Co. Jail.”

22

Plaintiff’s request to join additional defendants is construed as a motion for leave

23

to amend. So construed, the motion is denied because plaintiff has not submitted a proposed

24

amended complaint.

25

///

26

///
1

1

Plaintiff’s request for a continuance is denied. Plaintiff has not demonstrated why

2

he is unable to prosecute this litigation from the Shasta County Jail. Moreover, as to the motion

3

for summary judgment brought by defendants Edwards and Jackson, plaintiff has not explained

4

why he failed to initially respond to the motion, which was originally filed in August 2015. Nor

5

has plaintiff explained why he did not seek an extension of time as to that motion before now.

6

As to the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Boyd and Little in December 2015,

7

plaintiff’s current motion is construed as a motion for an extension of time to respond to the

8

motion. Given plaintiff’s recent incarceration, and good cause appearing therefor, plaintiff will

9

be granted additional time to respond to the motion filed by defendants Boyd and Little.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1.

To the extent plaintiff seeks leave to amend, plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 50) is

2.

To the extent plaintiff seeks a continuance of all deadlines until after

12

denied;

13
14

November 20, 2016, plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 50) is denied;

15

3.

To the extent plaintiff seeks an extension of time to respond to the motion

16

for summary judgment filed by defendants Boyd and Little, plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 50) is

17

granted;

18
19
20
21

4.

Plaintiff may file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment filed

by defendants Boyd and Little within 30 days of the date of this order; and
5.

Defendants Boyd and Little may file a reply brief within 15 days after the

date of service of plaintiff’s opposition, if any is filed.

22
23
24
25

DATED: March 2, 2016
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
2