Fuller v. Maryowi et al

Filing 73

ORDER Denying 57 in Part and Granting in Part Revised Scheduling Order as Unnecessary; Granting 58 Joinder in Request for Revised Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 3/22/11. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/23/2011)

Fuller v. Maryowi et al

Doc. 73

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. RICHARD A. ORTIZ, et al., Defendants. / (Docket Nos. 57 and 58) KENNETH ADRIAN FULLER, Plaintiff, No. C 10-2546 RMW (PR) ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER AS UNNECESSARY; GRANTING JOINDER IN REQUEST FOR REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA *E-FILED - 3/23/11*

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court are defendants' request for revised schedule order. On January 28, 2011, defendants Dalley, Frei and McGuiness filed a request for revised scheduling order (docket no. 57) asking the court to extend their motion for summary judgment date from January 31, 2011 to March 31, 2011. On that same date, defendants Dipman, Ortiz, and Shanahan filed a joinder in request for revised scheduling order (docket no. 58) asking the Court to grant an extension of time to file their summary judgment by March 31, 2011. On January 31, 2011, defendants Dalley, Frei and McGuiness filed their motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendants Dalley, Frei and McGuiness request for revised scheduling order (docket no. 57) as unnecessary, and GRANTS defendants Dipman, Ortiz's, and Shanahan request for revised scheduling order (docket no. 58). Defendants Dipman, Ortiz, and Shanahan shall file
Order Denying Revised Scheduling Order as Unnecessary; Granting Joinder in Request for Revised Scheduling Order P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.10\Fuller546Joinders.wpd

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

their dispositive motion no later than March 31, 2011. Plaintiff shall file his opposition no more than thirty (30) days from the date the dispositive motion is filed. Defendants' reply is due fifteen (15) days from the date plaintiff's opposition is filed. This order terminates docket nos. 57 and 58. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 3/22/11 RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge

Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Revised Scheduling Order as Unnecessary; Granting Joinder in Request for Revised Scheduling Order P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.10\Fuller546Joinders.wpd 2