Villasenor v. Cate

Filing 31

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 30 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 30 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 14 MOTION to Dismiss Responses due by 1/2/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANCISCO VILLASENOR, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 vs. MATTHEW CATE, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 11-3662 LHK (PR) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION (Docket No. 30) 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 18 against Defendant Matthew Cate, alleging that he was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s 19 serious medical needs. Defendant filed an motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust. On May 11, 20 2012, the Court granted Defendant’s unopposed motion to dismiss. On June 7, 2012, Plaintiff 21 filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that he had been housed in administrative segregation 22 and had no ability to contact this Court. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for 23 reconsideration, re-opened this action, and ordered him to file an opposition to Defendant’s 24 motion to dismiss within 28 days. On August 12, 2012, after having received no further 25 communication from Plaintiff, the Court again dismissed the action. Plaintiff then filed a second 26 motion for reconsideration along with supporting documentation indicating that he mailed an 27 opposition to the Court on July 18, 2012. On October 22, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s 28 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition Villasenor662eot-opp-final.wpd 1 motion for reconsideration and instructed Plaintiff to file an opposition no later than November 2 19, 2012. 3 On November 9, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file an opposition. (Doc. 4 No. 30.) Petitioner indicates that he has limited access to the law library and that his copy of 5 Defendant’s motion to dismiss was inadvertently taken during a search of his area. (Doc. No. 6 30.) Plaintiff motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an opposition within twenty-eight (28) 7 days of the filing date of this order. 8 Given the fact that this Court has granted two motions for reconsideration to allow 9 Plaintiff to file an opposition which he implied had been drafted and mailed several months ago, 10 Plaintiff is advised that no further extensions of time are contemplated. Plaintiff is further 11 advised that failure to file a opposition within the time allowed will result in dismissal of 12 this action for the reasons stated in this Court’s May 11, 2012 order. 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 12/4/12 LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition Villasenor662eot-opp-final.wpd 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?