Patrick v. Hitchcock, et al.

Filing 44

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 10/20/20 DENYING 41 Motion for Extension of time and DISREGARDING 42 Motion for Reconsideration, construed as a late-filed opposition to defendants' motion to compel. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate 41 and 42 as pending motions. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NICHOLAS PATRICK,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-CV-1045-TLN-DMC

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

MCINTYRE, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time, ECF No.

19

41, and Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 42. Defendants have filed an opposition

20

to both motions. See ECF No. 43.

21

In his motion for an extension of time, Plaintiff seeks “additional discovery time to

22

address this action.” ECF No. 41, g. 2. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied as unnecessary because,

23

on August 10, 2020, the court issued an order staying discovery pending resolution of

24

Defendants’ motion for involuntary dismissal. See ECF No. 39.

25

In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s

26

June 12, 2020, order granting Defendants’ motion to compel, which was unopposed. See ECF

27

No. 42. Plaintiff sets forth various arguments as to why Defendants’ motion to compel should not

28

have been granted. Plaintiff’s motion is construed as a late-filed opposition to Defendants’
1

1

motion to compel and, so construed, is disregarded as untimely.1
Defendants’ motion for involuntary dismissal, which has not been opposed, will be

2
3

addressed separately.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 41, is denied as

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 42, is construed as a late-

6

unnecessary;

7
8

filed opposition to Defendants’ motion to compel and, so construed, is disregarded; and

9

3.

10

The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 41 and 42 as

pending motions.

11
12

Dated: October 20, 2020
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Defendants’ motion to compel was filed on March 13, 2020. As of the date of the Court’s June 12,
2020, order, Plaintiff had not responded to the motion in any way.
1

28

2