Packnett v. Alvarez et al

Filing 57

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' DISPOSITIVE MOTION; GRANTING HIS REQUEST TO FILE UNTIMELY REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO HIS MOTION FOR RECON SIDERATION by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers; granting 55 Motion for Leave to File; granting in part and denying in part 56 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 47 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss Responses due by 11/16/2016.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

KENNETH JEROME PACKNETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
FERNAND ALVAREZ, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01229-YGR (PR)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
IN PART PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANTS’ DISPOSITIVE MOTION;
AND GRANTING HIS REQUEST TO FILE
UNTIMELY REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’
OPPOSITION TO HIS MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time in which to file his
opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 56.
Plaintiff requests an extension of time, up to and including November 16, 2016, in which to file
his opposition on the grounds that his library access is limited at the prison where he is
incarcerated. Dkt. 56 at 1. Plaintiff also requests a “[n]in[e]ty (90) day continuance from
December 16, 2016 until April 16, 2017 to complete his responsive pleading.” Id. The Court
construes Plaintiff’s aforementioned request as a second request for a continuance to file his
opposition up to and including April 16, 2017, which the Court notes is beyond his requested
ninety-day continuance.
Having read and considered Plaintiff’s request, and good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part. The time in which Plaintiff may file his opposition to Defendants’
dispositive motion will be extended up to and including November 16, 2016. Therefore,
Plaintiff’s request for such an extension is GRANTED. However, the Court finds that Plaintiff is
not entitled to a second continuance, and DENIES his request for a continuance to file his
opposition up to and including April 16, 2017.

1
2

Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after the date Plaintiff’s
opposition is filed.

3

Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s request to file an untimely reply to Defendants’

4

opposition to his motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 55. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request and

5

directs the Clerk of the Court to file the document entitled, “Request for Leave of Court to File

6

**Untimely Reply to Defendants[’] Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration,” and

7

docket it as “Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for

8

Reconsideration.”

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 55 and 56.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 17, 2016
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
United States District Court Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2