Opinion
23-cv-02371 BLF (PR)
07-11-2024
SAMUEL RUSS OXLEY, Plaintiff, v. MADRIGAL, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION (DOCKET NO. 22)
BETH LABSON FREEMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers and the medical staff at the West County Detention Facility in Contra Costa County, where he was previously confined. Dkt. No. 1. The Court found the amended complaint stated cognizable claims and ordered service on Defendants who were directed to file a dispositive motion. Dkt. No. 14. On May 8, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Dkt. No. 18. Plaintiff's opposition was due twenty-eight days thereafter, i.e., by June 5, 2024. See Dkt. No. 14 at 6.
On June 7, 2024, the Court granted an extension of time to Plaintiff such that the Plaintiff's opposition was due on July 5, 2024. Dkt. No. 21. On July 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for a second extension of time of sixty days due to quarantine and medical issues. Dkt. No. 22. Good cause appearing, the request is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff's opposition shall be filed no later than August 16, 2024, which is an extension of 42 days.
Defendants' reply shall be filed no later than fourteen (14) days from the date Plaintiff's opposition is filed.
Attached to this order is a copy of Plaintiff's amended complaint as well as a request for copies form if the Plaintiff would like to request the exhibits attached to his amended complaint.
This order terminates Docket No. 22.
IT IS SO ORDERED.