Mahone v. Pierce County et al

Filing 61

ORDER granting 60 Motion for Extension of Time. The Clerk of Court shall re-note Defendants' motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment 53 for October 2, 2015. Thus, Plaintiff's response to the motion is due on September 28, 2015 and Defendants' reply is due on October 2, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG; cc to Plaintiff)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

SYLVESTER JAMES MAHONE,
Plaintiff,

9

No. C14-5665 BHS-KLS

v.
10
11
12

PIERCE COUNTY, PAUL PASTOR, TONY
GENGA, GEORGE WASSON, TERRY
REMBERT, JESSE BOYLE, SCOTT
KASTEN, ILSOP LEE,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO
RESPOND TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

13
Defendants.
14
15

On June 15, 2015, Defendants filed a “motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(c) and/or FRCP

16

56.” Dkt. 53. Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings and/or for summary judgment.

17

Id. Attached to the motion are documents and evidence outside of the pleadings. Id. On July 1,

18

2015, the Court provided a notice to Plaintiff pursuant to Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935,

19
20

940–41 (9th Cir. 2012) and re-noted Defendants’ motion for July 24, 2015. Dkt. 59. On July 20,
2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an extension of his time to respond until September 31

21
22
23

[sic], 2015.
Plaintiff, who is no longer incarcerated, moved to the State of Georgia on June 2, 2015.

24

He states that he has not received “the full discovery from the Defendants sufficient to

25

adequately respond” to the motion, that he has left messages with counsel for Defendants, and

26

that he is caring for his 76 year old father who is hospitalized. Dkt. 60, p. 3.
ORDER - 1

1

The Court notes that the discovery deadline in this case expired in April 2015 (Dkt. 19),

2

that the Court resolved Plaintiff’s motion to compel on March 26, 2015 (Dkt. 49), Defendants

3

filed a notice of compliance with the Court’s order on the motion to compel (Dkt. 57), and that

4

no further discovery motions or requests for extension of discovery have been filed. However,

5
based on Plaintiff’s family obligations and recent move, the Court finds that the extension
6
7

requested is not unreasonable.

8

It is, therefore, ORDERED:

9

(1)

The Clerk of Court shall re-note Defendants’ motion to dismiss and/or for

10

summary judgment (Dkt. 53) for October 2, 2015. Thus, Plaintiff’s response to the motion is

11

due on September 28, 2015 and Defendants’ reply is due on October 2, 2015.

12

(2)

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to counsel for

13
Defendants.
14
15

DATED this 3rd day of August, 2015.

16

A

17
18

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER - 2