James v. Oakland Police Department et al

Filing 98

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES 95 .(Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/1/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DENNIS LAMAR JAMES,

Case No. 13-cv-00011-SI

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES

9
OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, et
al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Re: Dkt. No. 95

Defendants.

12

The doctor-defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on December 9, 2015. Now

13

before the court is plaintiff’s second request for an extension of the deadline to oppose that motion

14

for summary judgment. Plaintiff states that he needs additional time because he has been feeling

15

overwhelmed by his litigation in this court, he might want to do discovery, and he may be released

16

from custody soon. The court is largely unpersuaded. First, the court has set longer briefing

17

schedules mindful of both plaintiff’s custodial status and the existence of two sets of defendants.

18

Plaintiff does have another case pending, James v. Hayward Police Department, Case No. C 13-

19

1092 SI, but there are no current deadlines in that case. Second, plaintiff’s suggestion that he

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

might want to do discovery does not warrant any delay in the briefing schedule because he has had
many months to do discovery, does not identify what discovery remains to be done or explain why
he has not yet done it, and does not identify the particular evidence he will obtain to avoid
summary judgment. Finally, plaintiff’s custodial status is too unpredictable to warrant any further
delay in the prosecution of this action; although plaintiff expects to be released from custody, he
notes that there are additional charges pending against him in another county. This action was
filed more than three years ago, and needs to move toward resolution. Defendants, as well as
plaintiffs, are entitled to timely resolution of litigation in which they are involved. Plaintiff must

27
prepare his opposition now, and should not wait until his release from custody.
28

1

The court GRANTS a limited extension of the deadline for plaintiff to file an opposition to

2

the doctor-defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Docket No. 95.) Plaintiff must file and

3

serve his opposition to the doctor-defendants’ motion for summary judgment no later than May 5,

4

2016. This deadline will not be further extended because, by the time it arrives, the motion will

5

have been pending for six months. Failure to file the opposition by the deadline will result in the

6

motion being deemed unopposed. The doctor-defendants must file and serve their reply brief, if

7

any, no later than May 20, 2016.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

The law enforcement defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 18, 2016.
The court now sua sponte resets the deadlines on that motion: Plaintiff must file and serve his
opposition to the law enforcement defendants’ motion no later than May 5, 2016. The law
enforcement defendants must file and serve their reply brief, if any, no later than May 20, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 1, 2016
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2