Hartline v. National University

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 9/16/2014 GRANTING, in part, plaintiff's 11 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff's Opposition to defendant's 7 Motion to Dismiss is due 11/19/2014. Defendant's Reply, if any, is due by 11/26/2014. Initial Scheduling Conference is RE-SET for 1/7/2015 at 10:00 AM and Motion to Dismiss Hearing is CONTINUED to 12/3/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC). (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DOYLE DEAN HARTLINE,

11

No. 2:14-cv-00635 KJM AC P

Plaintiff,

12

v.

ORDER

13

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY,

14

Defendant.

15
16

On March 7, 2014, plaintiff initiated this action and is proceeding in pro per. ECF No. 1.

17

On April 16, 2014, the court granted plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 3.

18

Also on April 16, 2014, the court set an initial scheduling conference for September 24, 2014.

19

ECF No. 5.
On August 4, 2014, defendant filed a motion to dismiss and a hearing on the matter was

20
21

ultimately scheduled before the undersigned on September 24, 2014. ECF Nos. 7, 9.
On August 19, 2014, plaintiff field a document styled as a motion for 120-day extension

22
23

of time. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff requests an extension of time “based on the need for medical

24

treatment, physical therapy and further medical testing.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff states he is “physically

25

incapable of functioning to the best of his ability as a disabled person and is in need of said

26

medical treatment.” Id. Plaintiff also states during the extension he will “attempt to find an

27

attorney.” Id.

28

////
1

1

In light of plaintiff’s claimed medical needs, the court will grant a 60-day extension of

2

time for plaintiff to respond to defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff is cautioned he must

3

timely file a response to defendant’s motion and failure to do so may result in an order to show

4

cause. Further, during the rescheduled hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss, plaintiff should

5

be prepared to discuss his particular medical needs with regard to scheduling further deadlines.

6

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, ECF No. 11, is granted in part and plaintiff is

8
9
10
11
12

granted sixty days to respond to defendant’s motion to dismiss;
2. The September 24, 2014 hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss is vacated and
rescheduled to December 3, 2014;
3. Plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss is due by November 19, 2014,
see Local Rule 230(c);

13

4. Defendant’s reply, if any, is due by November 26, 2014; and

14

5. The September 24, 2014 initial scheduling conference is vacated and rescheduled to

15

January 7, 2015.

16

DATED: September 16, 2014

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2