Gonzalez v. Runnels et al
ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting in part 131 plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time; Oppositions to be filed by 8/27/2010 (no further extensions of this deadline will be permitted); Replies to be filed by 9/10/2010 (Attachments: # 1 CertServ) (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2010)
Gonzalez v. Runnels et al
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FRANCISCO GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. D. L. RUNNELS; et al., Defendants. /
No. C 07-2303 MHP (pr) ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES ON MARINO'S DISPOSITIVE MOTION
Plaintiff has filed a request for a 90-day extension of the July 9, 2010 deadline for him to file his opposition to defendant Marino's motion to dismiss and for summary judgment that was filed on June 8, 2010. The court will GRANT the request in part, and permit a limited extension of time for plaintiff to file his opposition. (Docket # 131.) Although plaintiff has only had Marino's motion for summary judgment for a month, that motion makes the same basic argument (i.e., that plaintiff did not have an untreated serious medical need with regard to his shoulder) made by the other defendants' motion for summary judgment that has been pending since November 9, 2009. Plaintiff has had more than enough time to assemble an opposition to that point. In his request for an extension of time, plaintiff also complained about various medical concerns he now has, but those medical problems are beyond the scope of this action. The court having granted several defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment regarding other medical claims asserted by plaintiff, the only claim remaining for adjudication in this action is whether defendants acted with deliberate indifference to plaintiff's shoulder problems. To the extent plaintiff wants to assert different medical claims, he can file a new action after exhausting administrative remedies for any such claims. Plaintiff also states that he has not received the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
health care review committee files for six months, but fails to explain the significance of those records to his shoulder problems and fails to explain whether they are not within documents he has already obtained. The court notes that plaintiff has already filed hundreds and hundreds of pages of medical records in the three years this case has been pending, and that Dr. Sayre filed 420+ pages of plaintiff's medical file with his declaration in support of his motion for summary judgment. Several months ago, plaintiff filed a motion for a 60-day extension of time to send pleadings and discovery to defendants. The motion is DENIED. (Docket # 118.) Plaintiff did not need to deliver pleadings to anyone because the Marshal serves process on defendants where, as here, the plaintiff is proceeding as a pauper. Plaintiff did not need permission to send discovery requests. The court now sets the following briefing schedule on defendant Marino's motion to dismiss and for summary judgment: 1. Plaintiff must file and serve his opposition to Marino's motion to dismiss and
for summary judgment no later than August 27, 2010. No further extensions of this deadline will be permitted. If plaintiff does not file an opposition to the motion by that deadline, the motion will be deemed unopposed. 2. 2010. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 28, 2010 ______________________ Marilyn Hall Patel United States District Judge Defendant's reply, if any, must be filed and served no later than September 10,
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?