Hollis v. Herrick et al

Filing 54

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS AND STAYING CASE. Motions terminated: 52 MOTION for Extension of Time to File filed by Marvin G. Hollis, 51 MOTION to Reopen Case filed by Marvin G. Hollis. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 06/19/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

No. C 08-3154 TEH (PR)

MARVIN G. HOLLIS,
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF
TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO
DISMISS AND STAYING DISCOVERY

v.
DEBRA HERRICK, L.P.T., et al.,
Defendants.

16

/

17
18

Plaintiff Marvin Hollis, a prisoner currently incarcerated

19

at California State Prison - Sacramento (“CSP-Sacramento”) in

20

Sacramento, California, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint under

21

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

22

dismissed this action.

23

Court found that Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to state a First

24

Amendment claim against defendants Schlitz, Selby and Rankin.

25

Court dismissed defendant Herrick as a defendant because the summons

26

served on Defendant Herrick was returned unexecuted.

27

at 2 fn. 1 (citing Doc. #12).

28

Doc. #1.

On February 23, 2010, the Court

Doc. #37.

In dismissing the action, the

The

See Doc. #37

On July 5, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

1

affirmed the dismissal of the retaliation claims against defendants

2

Schlitz, Selby and Rankin for failure to state a claim.

3

Circuit vacated and remanded for the district court to consider

4

Plaintiff’s allegations that he was denied his due process rights

5

and whether there was good cause for the failure to serve defendant

6

Herrick, or whether, absent good cause, an extension was warranted.

7

Doc. #43.

8
9

The Ninth

Accordingly, this case was reopened.
Plaintiff has filed a motion to reopen this case.

#51.

Doc.

Defendants have filed a motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma

10

pauperis status, a renewed motion to dismiss, and a motion to stay

11

discovery pending the resolution of the renewed motion to dismiss.

12

Doc. #48.

13

response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

14

Plaintiff seeks a 30-day extension of time to file his
Doc. #52.

Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is GRANTED.

15

Doc. #52.

16

to dismiss by July 31, 2012.

17

granted.

18

Doc. #51.

19

resolution of the renewed motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

20

The Court will address all other pending motions after deciding the

21

renewed motion to dismiss.

22

Plaintiff shall file his opposition to the renewed motion
No other extensions of time will be

Plaintiff’s request to reopen this case is DENIED as moot.
Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending the
Doc. #48.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25

DATED

06/19/2012
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

26
27

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.08\Hollis-08-3154-eot to file opp to mtd stay discovery.wpd

28

2