Holmes v. Estock et al

Filing 112

ORDER Re: 111 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's ex parte motion. Plaintiff, proceeding through counsel or pro se, must file a response in opposition to Defendants' motion for summary jud gment on or before April 17, 2020. If Plaintiff files a timely response, Defendants may file a reply in support of their motion on or before April 30, 2020. If Plaintiff does not retain new counsel and does not wish to proceed pro se, Plaintiff's current counsel of record must file a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. The appropriate Notice of Substitution or Motion to Withdraw must be filed on or before April 3, 2020. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 2/14/2020. (tcf)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CHARLES HOLMES, Case No. 3:16-cv-02458-MMA-BLM Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ESTOCK, et al., 13 Defendants. [Doc. No. 111] 14 15 16 Plaintiff Charles Holmes, a California inmate, brings this civil rights action 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment right to 18 adequate medical care. Plaintiff, proceeding through counsel, has filed a Third Amended 19 Complaint (“TAC”) against Defendants. See Doc. No. 81. Defendants move for 20 summary judgment as to all claims. See Doc. No. 96. To date, for reasons set forth in an 21 order issued by the Court on January 29, 2020, see Doc. No. 110, Plaintiff has not filed a 22 response in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment despite being 23 granted multiple extensions of time in which to do so. See Doc. Nos. 100, 102, 110. 24 Plaintiff now moves for an additional extension of time in which to file a response 25 in opposition to Defendants’ motion. See Doc. No. 111. Plaintiff’s counsel has 26 submitted a declaration in support of the ex parte motion. See id. Plaintiff’s counsel sets 27 forth several grounds in his declaration regarding the failure to file a response brief, and 28 states that he intends to withdraw as counsel of record. As such, Plaintiff’s counsel 1 3:16-cv-02458-MMA-BLM 1 requests that the Court grant Plaintiff an additional sixty (60) days in which to file a 2 response brief, either proceeding through new counsel or pro se. 3 As the Court has previously explained, “a summary judgment motion must be 4 decided on the merits, and it ‘must be denied on no other grounds than that the movant 5 has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating the absence of triable issues.’” Doc. No. 6 110 at 2 (citing Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993)). The 7 Court prefers not to proceed in this matter unless absolutely necessary without a 8 substantive response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 9 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s ex parte motion. Plaintiff, proceeding 10 through counsel or pro se, must file a response in opposition to Defendants’ motion for 11 summary judgment on or before April 17, 2020. If Plaintiff files a timely response, 12 Defendants may file a reply in support of their motion on or before April 30, 2020. 13 In addition, if Plaintiff retains new counsel to represent him in this action, he must 14 file a Notice of Substitution of Counsel as soon thereafter as practicable. If Plaintiff does 15 not retain new counsel and wishes to proceed pro se, Plaintiff must file a Notice 16 substituting himself as counsel of record. If Plaintiff does not retain new counsel and 17 does not wish to proceed pro se, Plaintiff’s current counsel of record must file a Motion 18 to Withdraw as Counsel. The appropriate Notice of Substitution or Motion to Withdraw 19 must be filed on or before April 3, 2020. 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: February 14, 2020 _______________________________________ HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 3:16-cv-02458-MMA-BLM

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?