Gonzalez v. Zika et al

Filing 76

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING PLAINTIFFS 75 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2013) Modified on 10/28/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 ERIC L. GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 No. C 11-5561 CW (PR) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT v. CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER DR. BILL ZIKA, DR. GARBARINO, Doc. no. 75 Defendants. __________________________________/ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility (CTF) in Soledad, California, filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious mental health needs. On August 27, 2013, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment. On the same day, judgment was entered in favor of Defendants. On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 59(e). Also, on September 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s Order Granting Defendants’ 24 Motion for Summary Judgment. On September 25, 2013, Plaintiff 25 filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to require 26 Defendants to recommend single-cell status for him until the Court 27 rendered its decision on his Rule 59(e) motion. 28 On October 9, 1 2013, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motions for 2 relief from judgment and for a temporary restraining order. 3 On October 17, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for an 4 extension of time to respond to Defendants’ opposition to his 5 motion for relief from judgment. 6 he did not receive Defendants’ opposition, he needs additional time 7 to file his reply. 8 9 Plaintiff indicates that, because As discussed above, judgment was entered in this case on August 27, 2013. Doc. no. 67. Since that date, Plaintiff has United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 filed two notices of appeal to the Ninth Circuit, doc. nos. 68, 71, 11 and motions for relief from judgment and a temporary restraining 12 order. 13 reasons stated in the Court’s October 9, 2013 Order. 14 need not file a reply to Defendants’ opposition and his motion for 15 an extension of time to file a reply is, therefore, DENIED. These post-judgment motions were denied based upon the CONCLUSION 16 17 Plaintiff For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension 18 of time to file a reply is DENIED. 19 number 75. 20 This Order terminates docket IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 23 DATED: 10/28/2013 CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?