Hash v. Cate et al

Filing 126

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION; DECLINING TO RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION. The deadlines set forth in the order of October 30, 2012 remain in effect. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 14, 2012. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/14/2012: # 1 Certificate of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

LAWRENCE GEORGE HASH,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

No. C-08-3729 MMC (PR)

v.
CHARLES LEE, et al.,
Defendants.

/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION; DECLINING TO RECONSIDER
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

16
17

By order filed October 30, 2012, the Court granted defendants’ administrative motion

18

to extend the deadline to file dispositive motions, extended the deadline to February 15,

19

2013, and set a revised briefing schedule relative thereto. In so ruling, the Court noted

20

plaintiff had not filed opposition to the administrative motion.

21

Before the Court is plaintiff’s “Request for Time Enough to File His Opposition to

22

Defendants’ Administrative Motion,” dated November 28, 2012 and filed by the Clerk of the

23

Court on December 10, 2012, as well as an opposition to the administrative motion, also

24

dated November 28, 2012 and filed December 10, 2012. In his request, plaintiff argues

25

that, due to delays with the delivery of his mail, he did not receive the administrative motion

26

until October 30, 2012, and that, due to various issues pertaining to his obtaining access to

27

the prison law library, he was unable to prepare opposition to the administrative motion

28

until November 28, 2012. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s request for an extension to file

1
2

his opposition is hereby GRANTED, and the Court will consider the opposition.
Having read and considered plaintiff’s opposition, however, the Court finds no basis

3

to reconsider its order of October 30, 2012. Accordingly, the deadlines set forth in the

4

order of October 30, 2012 remain in effect.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: December 14, 2012
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2