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).
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?