Gosselin v. Tilton

Full title: PASQUAL GOSSELIN, Plaintiff, v. J. TILTON, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 5, 2015

1:10-cv-01974-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2015)

Opinion

1:10-cv-01974-GSA-PC

08-05-2015

PASQUAL GOSSELIN, Plaintiff, v. J. TILTON, et al., Defendants.

Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF No. 54.) ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME NUNC PRO TUNC (ECF No. 55.) ORDER DEEMING PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TIMELY FILED (ECF No. 57.)

Pasqual Gosselin ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds on the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on December 29, 2012, against defendants R. Hubach, J. Tabor, and D. Latraille for adverse conditions of confinement, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; against defendants J. Tabor and D. Latraille for use of excessive force against Plaintiff, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; against defendant R. Hubach for failure to protect Plaintiff, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against defendant D. Adams for implementation of policy violating Plaintiff's rights under the Fourth Amendment and rights to privacy. (Doc. 11.)

The parties to this action have consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Docs. 6, 33.) Therefore, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of final judgment.

On July 23, 2015, the court issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause, within thirty days, why this case should not be dismissed based on his failure to file a response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment of February 17, 2015. (ECF No. 54.) On August 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed a response to the court's order, a motion for extension of time, and an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 55, 56, 57.) In light of Plaintiff's response, the court finds good cause to discharge the order to show cause, grant the motion for extension of time nunc pro tunc, and deem the opposition timely filed.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court's order to show cause issued on July 23, 2015, is DISCHARGED;

2. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time is GRANTED nunc pro tunc; and

3. Plaintiff's opposition to summary judgment, filed on August 3, 2015, is deemed timely filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5 , 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE