Williams v. Haag et al
Filing
48
ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES 46 47 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 6/28/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
LAWRENCE LEE WILLIAMS,
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
No. C 12-3310 SI (pr)
Plaintiff,
ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES
v.
MELINDA HAAG,
United States Attorney; et al.,
Defendants.
/
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on May 17, 2013, which is currently
pending. Plaintiff has filed a motion for a three-month extension of time to file his opposition.
Upon due consideration of plaintiff's motion, the court finds that an extension of time is
warranted, but that the three-month extension requested by plaintiff is excessive in light of the
fact that he is no longer in custody. The circumstances plaintiff states that he faces currently –
chronic medical problems, living in a homeless shelter, lack of an automobile and low education
– are unlikely to change in the near future. And his claimed need to obtain evidence does not
warrant the lengthy extension of time because it should not take nearly that long for a diligent
plaintiff to obtain the documents. For these reasons, the court GRANTS plaintiff's motion for
an extension of time (Docket # 47) and sets the following new briefing schedule: Plaintiff must
file and serve on defense counsel his opposition to the dispositive motion no later than July 26,
2013. Defendants must file and serve their reply brief (if any) no later than August 9, 2013.
1
At the same time he filed a motion for extension of time, plaintiff filed a motion to put
2
the July 19 hearing on defendants' motion for summary judgment back on calendar for oral
3
argument. The motion to put the motion for summary judgment on for oral argument is
4
DENIED. (Docket # 46.) The motion for summary judgment can adequately be adjudicated on
5
the written briefs and evidence the parties submit, and it does not appear that oral argument
6
would aid the court in consideration of the matter, even if plaintiff is able to travel to the
7
courthouse to appear at an oral argument.
8
Finally, it is not clear whether plaintiff served a copy of each of the foregoing motions
9
on defense counsel. Plaintiff is reminded that he must serve on defense counsel a copy of every
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
document he files in this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 28, 2013
_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?