Knight v. Evans

Filing 35

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 32 Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion. Defendants dispositive motion extended to 02/27/09; Plaintiff's opposition to be filed/served by 03/30/09. If Defendants wish to file a reply brief, they may do so no later than ten (10) days after the date Plaintiff's opposition is filed. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2009) Modified on 2/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 CLARENCE V. KNIGHT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) M. S. EVANS, et al., ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________________ ) No. C 06-0887 SBA (pr) ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION (Docket no. 32) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California Plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Before the Court is Defendants' motion for an extension of time to file a dispositive motion up to and including April 27, 2009, forty-five days following the scheduled settlement proceedings before Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas on March 12, 2009. In its Order dated February 11, 2009, the Court noted that the deadline for filing a dispositive motion was on February 19, 2009. (Feb. 11, 2009 Order at 6.) Defendants claim that the February 11, 2009 Order "provided Defendants four court-days to prepare and file a motion for summary judgment," especially in light of two legal holidays. (Rivo Decl. at 2.) However, the Court notes that in its December 10, 2008 Order, Defendants were directed to file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion "no later than thirty (30) days from the date their answer is due." (Dec. 10, 2008 Order at 15.) In its February 11, 2009 Order, the Court noted that Defendants' answer was filed on January 20, 2009; therefore, the dispositive motion was due thirty days later, on February 19, 2009. Contrary to Defendants' allegations, they had thirty days after filing their answer to file their dispositive motion. In addition, the Court has warned the parties multiple times in previous orders that "no further extensions of time will be granted in this case absent exigent circumstances." (Dec. 10, 2008 Order at 17; Feb. 11, 2009 Order at 7.) Defendants have failed to allege that their failure to file a timely dispositive motion was due to exigent circumstances. Instead, Defendants allege that they "believe that settlement proceedings may be successful, based on similarly situated 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 cases that have settled before Magistrate Judge Vadas." (Rivo Decl. at 3.) The Court notes that when this case was referred for settlement proceedings, the January 21, 2009 Order stated, "The parties are directed to abide by the briefing schedule in the Court's December 10, 2008 Order of Service." (Jan. 21, 2009 Order at 1.) Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants were on notice that the scheduled settlement conference would not affect the briefing schedule for their dispositive motion. Nevertheless, having read and considered Defendants' request and the accompanying declaration filed by Defendants' counsel, Lily A. Rivo, the Court finds that a brief extension of time is appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' request for an extension of time to file a dispositive motion (docket no. 32) is GRANTED in part. The time in which Defendants must file a dispositive motion will be extended up to and including February 27, 2009. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendants no later than March 30, 2009. If Defendants wish to file a reply brief, they may do so no later than ten (10) days after the date Plaintiff's opposition is filed. This Order terminates Docket no. 32. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 2/20/09 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.06\Knight0887.grantIP-EOT.frm 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CLARENCE KNIGHT, Plaintiff, v. M S EVANS, WARDEN et al, Defendant. / Case Number: CV06-00887 SBA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on February 20, 2009, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. Clarence V. Knight C07508 California State Prison - Soledad P.O. Box 1050 Soledad, CA 93960-1050 Dated: February 20, 2009 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.06\Knight0887.grantIP-EOT.frm 3

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?