Moore v. Woodford et al

Filing 51

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, GRANTING 43 Motion for Extension of Time; GRANTING 49 Motion for Extension of Time; GRANTING 50 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintff's response to Defendants' motion to dismiss due no later than 03/27/09; Defendants' optional reply due no later than 15 days after Plaintiff's opposition (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/16/2009) Modified on 3/17/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JUMAH ALI-THOMAS MOORE, Plaintiff, No. C 06-02357 SBA (PR) ORDER ADDRESSING PENDING MOTIONS (Docket nos. 43, 49, 50) /

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al., Defendants.

Before the Court are Plaintiff's motions for an extension of time to serve discovery requests on Defendants (docket nos. 43, 49) and his motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss (docket no. 50). Plaintiff requests the Court to grant him an extension of time to serve discovery requests on Defendants. In its September 30, 2008 Order, the Court stated, "all discovery requests must be served on the opposing party on or by November 10, 2008 and all discovery responses must be served on or by December 1, 2008." (Sept. 30, 2008 Order at 9.) Plaintiff requests the Court to grant him "until February 18, 2009, in order to file [his] discovery requests to the defendants since Plaintiff has now received the defendants' answer." (Jan. 22, 2009 Mot. for EOT to File Disc. Req. at 1.) Plaintiff also requests the Court to grant him "until March 2, 2009" in order to "serve his discovery requests to defendant Zavala." (Feb. 6, 2009 Mot. for EOT to File Disc. Req. at 1.) Because his requests were timely and meritorious even though both due dates have passed, Plaintiff's motions (docket nos. 43, 49) are GRANTED. Plaintiff also requests an extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss up to and including March 27, 2009. Plaintiff has failed to allege that his failure to file a timely opposition was due to exigent circumstances. Nevertheless, having read and considered Plaintiff's request and the accompanying declaration filed by Plaintiff, the Court finds that an extension of time is appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss (docket no. 50) is

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

GRANTED. The time in which Plaintiff must file his response to Defendants' motion to dismiss will be extended up to and including March 27, 2009. CONCLUSION 1. Plaintiff's motions for an extension of time to file discovery requests to Defendants

(docket nos. 43, 49) are GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants' motion

to dismiss (docket no. 50) is GRANTED. Plaintiff must file his response to Defendants' motion to dismiss no later than March 27, 2009. If Defendants wish to file a reply brief, they shall do so no later than fifteen (15) days after the date Plaintiff's opposition is filed. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. The Court will resolve the motion to dismiss in a separate written Order. 3. No further extensions of time will be granted in this case absent exigent

c i r c u m s t a n c e s. 4. This Order terminates Docket nos. 43, 49 and 50.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 3/13/09 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.06\Moore2357.grantEOTdis2&oppn.wpd c

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOORE et al, Plaintiff, v. WOODFORD et al, Defendant. /

Case Number: CV06-02357 SBA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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 March 16, 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.

Thomas Moore D-62389 Pelican Bay State Prison P.O. Box 7000 Crescent City, CA 95532 Dated: March 16, 2009

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.06\Moore2357.grantEOTdis3&oppn.wpd c