Zambrano v. Golding et al
Filing
44
ORDER GRANTING FOURTH AND FINAL 43 EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 6/3/2021. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
JUAN CARLOS ZAMBRANO,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
v.
ERIC GOLDING, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 19-cv-03332-HSG
ORDER GRANTING FOURTH AND
FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY
JUDGMENT MOTION
Re: Dkt. No. 43
12
13
Plaintiff, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), filed this pro se civil rights
14
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that PBSP correctional officials were deliberately
15
indifferent to his serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On August 13,
16
2020, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 34. The Court granted Plaintiff
17
three extensions of time to April 16, 2021 to file his opposition to the summary judgment motion.
18
Dkt. Nos. 37, 39, and 41. On May 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court stating that he had
19
not received the Court’s January 14, 2021 Order granting him a third extension of time to April
20
16, 2021 to file his opposition. Dkt. No. 43. In this letter, Plaintiff stated that he did not learn that
21
he had been granted an extension of time to April 16, 2021 until he received Defendants’ reply in
22
support of their summary judgment motion on May 3, 2021. Dkt. No. 43 at 1. Plaintiff requests
23
an additional extension of time to file his opposition since he was not notified of the third
24
extension of time and because COVID has greatly impacted prison operations and access to the
25
law library. Dkt. No. 43.
26
27
28
Plaintiff has had over ten months to prepare his opposition to the summary judgment
motion. It is unclear how the failure to receive the Court’s January 14, 2021 Order could, or did,
1
prevent or hinder him from preparing his opposition.1 In the interests of justice, the Court will
2
grant Plaintiff a final extension of time to July 15, 2021 to file an opposition to Defendants’
3
summary judgment motion. No further extensions of time will be granted for any reason.
If Plaintiff does not file an opposition by July 15, 2021,2 Defendants’ summary judgment
4
5
motion will be considered fully submitted as of July 15, 2021, and the Court will decide the
6
motion based on the record before the Court as of that date.
7
If Plaintiff timely files an opposition, Defendants may file an additional reply to the
8
opposition within fourteen (14) days of the date the opposition is filed, and Defendants’ summary
9
judgment motion will be considered fully submitted as of the date the additional reply is filed.
Plaintiff is reminded that he is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must comply
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to prosecute this case or to comply with the
12
Court’s order, including the deadlines set forth in this order, may result in the dismissal of this
13
action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
14
This order terminates Dkt. No. 43.
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
Dated: 6/3/2021
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
If Plaintiff believed that he had not been granted the third extension of time, he should have
timely filed an opposition by the original deadline of January 4, 2021. Instead, Plaintiff took no
action whatsoever to prosecute this action.
2
The Court will apply the mailbox rule to Petitioner’s filings, including any opposition that he
may file, and deem the opposition filed as of the date it is delivered to prison authorities for
mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76 (1988) (pro se prisoner filing is dated from date
prisoner delivers it to prison authorities).
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?