(PC) Wilkins v. Barber et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/7/2021 PARTIALLY GRANTING 187 Motion for Reconsideration; AFFIRMING 182 Order, but the deadline for filing pretrial motions is advanced to 9/25/2021; ORDERING Clerk to send Plaintiff copy of 179 Opposition; and GRANTING Plaintiff 14 days from the date of this order in which to file a reply. (Henshaw, R) Modified on 9/7/2021 (Henshaw, R).
Case 2:19-cv-01338-WBS-KJN Document 190 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KEENAN WILKINS, aka
DR. CHRISTINE S. BARBER, et al.,
No. 2:19-cv-1338 WBS KJN P
ORDER AMENDING AUGUST 24, 2021
ORDER AND REVISED SCHEDULING
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On August 30, 2021, plaintiff filed
objections, and on September 1, 2021, filed a request for reconsideration of the undersigned’s
August 24, 2021 order granting defendants additional time to file dispositive motions. (ECF No.
185.) Plaintiff objects that he was not permitted an opportunity to oppose the request, and argues
no good cause supports the request because the dispositive motion deadline was extended twice
without request by any party. Plaintiff argues that defendants failed to use such extra time to
prepare their dispositive motion, and no additional time should be granted.
While plaintiff is correct that the dispositive motions deadline was sua sponte extended on
two prior occasions, such extensions were necessitated by plaintiff’s requests for the extension of
the discovery deadline. Indeed, discovery motions were still pending at the time defendants
Case 2:19-cv-01338-WBS-KJN Document 190 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 2
sought their first extension of the dispositive motions deadline. Ideally, all discovery motions
should be resolved prior to the filing of a dispositive motion. By separate order, the undersigned
addressed the motions to compel. (ECF No. 189.) Therefore, the court will vacate the longer
extension granted defendants due to the previously pending discovery motions, but affirms its
finding that the defendants demonstrated good cause for the requested extension. The court
affirms the order granting defendants’ motion to modify the dispositive motions deadline because
the court finds good cause for such first extension, but amends defendants’ deadline to September
25, 2021, as initially requested by counsel for defendants.
On August 30, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice claiming that defendant Barber failed to file an
opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. He received an opposition filed by the
remaining defendants, but did not receive an opposition by defendant Barber. However, the
record confirms that defendant Barber filed an opposition which was served on plaintiff at his
address of record. (ECF No. 179-1.) Nevertheless, because plaintiff apparently did not receive
such opposition, the Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the opposition, and plaintiff is
granted fourteen days from the date of this order in which to file his reply.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 187) is partially granted.
2. The August 24, 2021 order granting defendants’ request for extension of time (ECF
No. 181) is affirmed, but the deadline for filing pretrial motions is advanced to September 25,
2021. In all other respects, the September 29, 2020 discovery and scheduling order remains in
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of defendant Barber’s
opposition (ECF No. 179).
4. Plaintiff is granted fourteen days from the date of this order in which to file a reply.
Dated: September 7, 2021
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?