Opinion
1:20-cv-00725-SKO (PC)
04-04-2023
BRYAN WEBB, Plaintiff, v. P. LLAMAS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO OPPOSE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 55)
SHEILA K. OBERTO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Bryan Webb is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
On March 10, 2023, this Court issued an Order To Show Cause Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed For Failure To Comply With Local Rules And Failure To Prosecute (OSC) due to Plaintiff's failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 53.) Plaintiff was ordered to file a written response to the OSC, or alternatively, to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, within 21 days of the date of service of the order. (Id. at 3.)
On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a response to the OSC. (Doc. 55.) Briefly stated, Plaintiff contends he missed the deadline for filing an opposition to the summary judgment motion due to “a good faith mistake.” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff states he was released from prison June 14, 2022 and since that time “has been committed to successful re-entry, reconnecting with loved ones, securing gainful employment, and complying with all terms and requirements of parole.” (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff states that since January 23, 2023, he has been employed “with the Local 250 Union” and is working 12-hour shifts, six days a week. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states in February and March of this year “he lost track of court notices and missed this deadline,” but maintains he remains committed to prosecuting his claims. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that on February 6 and March 19 he reached out to defense counsel “with updates about the way his work schedule and other obligations would impact his filing timelines for the case.” (Id.) Plaintiff received an email response on March 19, 2023, from attorney Tyler Heath, who advised Plaintiff that Shiran Zohar was no longer employed at the Attorney General's Office and that Heath would now be handling the case. (Id.) Plaintiff “also moves this Court to appoint counsel to represent him in this case” and/or to grant Plaintiff a 60-day extension of time within which to file an opposition to the summary judgment motion. (Id. at 2-3.)
The response is signed and dated March 31, 2023.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Initially, the Court advises Plaintiff his request or motion for the appointment of counsel will be addressed by way of a separate order.
Next, for good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for an extension of time within which to file an opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff SHALL file an opposition to the pending summary judgment motion no later than 60 days from the date of service of this order. No further extensions of time will be granted. CAUTION: Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to obey court orders.
Finally, the OSC (Doc. 53) is hereby DISCHARGED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.