Hare v. Simpson

Full title: GRAYSON L. HARE, JR., Plaintiff, v. SHIRLEY J. SIMPSON, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 3, 2013

No. CIV S-12-0136 JAM GGH PS (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2013)

Opinion

No. CIV S-12-0136 JAM GGH PS

01-03-2013

GRAYSON L. HARE, JR., Plaintiff, v. SHIRLEY J. SIMPSON, et al., Defendants.

Gregory G. Hollows

ORDER

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed a motion to strike defendants' motion to dismiss, filed November 30, 2012 and scheduled to be heard on January 31, 2013. The basis for the motion to strike is plaintiff's belief that defendants, although proceeding in pro se, are actually represented by counsel who prepared their motion but who has not entered an appearance in this case. Plaintiff additionally asserts that the motion should be stricken because the proof of service of defendants' motion does not contain a statement "under penalty of perjury," and because some exhibits attached to the motion do not contain the proper foundation.

Plaintiff's motion to strike will be taken up concurrently with defendants' motion to dismiss on January 31, 2013. The procedural arguments made by plaintiff in his motion to strike can be raised along with his opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss, which shall address the substance of the motion.

Plaintiff further seeks an extension of time in which to respond to the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has not shown good cause for needing an extension of time, other than the alleged procedural defects raised above, which can easily be raised in his opposition. Plaintiff does not, for example, claim that he did not timely receive the motion, despite its failure to include a statement under penalty of perjury. Therefore, plaintiff's request will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to strike will be heard on January 31, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.; and

2. Plaintiff's request for extension of time in which to respond to the motion to dismiss, filed December 20, 2012 (dkt. no. 20), is denied. Plaintiff shall file his opposition by January 17, 2013.

Gregory G. Hollows

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE