Williams v. Haag et al

Filing 48

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES 46 47 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 6/28/2013)

Download PDF
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?