Doyle v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations et al

Filing 40

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting in part and denying in part 36 Motion for Extension of Time to file Opposition. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SEAN PATRICK DOYLE,

4

No. C 12-2769 YGR (PR)

Plaintiff,

ORDER SETTING NEW BRIEFING
SCHEDULE

5
6
7
8
9

v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
et al.,
Defendants.
/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

This is a civil rights action brought by a pro se prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. One

12

of the named Defendants, Damon T. Hininger, has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)

13

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the ground that Plaintiff has not exhausted his

14

administrative remedies. Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for a sixty-day extension of time to

15

file his opposition to Defendant Hininger's motion to dismiss.

16

The Ninth Circuit requires that pro se prisoner-plaintiffs be given "notice of what is required

17

of them in order to oppose" motions to dismiss at the time of filing of the motions, rather than when

18

the district court orders service of process or otherwise before the motions are filed. Woods v.

19

Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935, 940-41 (9th Cir. 2012). Defendant Hininger did not initially give such a

20

notice to Plaintiff at the time of filing his motion to dismiss. However, Defendant Hininger has

21

since done so. (Docket No. 39.)

22

Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant Hininger's motion to dismiss is due May 28, 2013. As

23

mentioned above, Plaintiff requests a sixty-day extension of time to file his opposition. The Court

24

finds that only a twenty-eight-day extension is warranted; therefore, his request (docket no. 36) is

25

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. In order to allow Plaintiff time to prepare his opposition to

26

the pending motion to dismiss taking into account this Wyatt dismissal for non-exhaustion notice,

27

the Court now sets the following new briefing schedule on Defendant Hininger's motion to dismiss:

28

Plaintiff must file and serve his opposition to the motion no later than June 25, 2013. Defendant

1

Hininger shall file and serve a reply no later than July 23, 2013. No further extensions of time

2

will be granted in this case absent extraordinary circumstances.

3

This Order terminates Docket No. 36.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DATED: May 7, 2013
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\PRO-SE\YGR\CR.12\Doyle2769.WYATTnotice&grantEOT.wpd

2