Opinion
1:20-cv-01427-BAM (PC)
03-28-2023
MATTHEW H. BECKETT, Plaintiff, v. MORENO, et al., Defendants.
Defendants' Response Due: April 28, 2023
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF RE: EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION
(ECF No. 49)
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Matthew H. Beckett (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's first amended complaint against Defendants Sedillo and Moreno for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment for the incident on October 21, 2018, for force used after the time Plaintiff lost consciousness. All parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 45.)
On March 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Motion Requesting the Production of Evidence under FRCP - And Both Interrogatory/Deposition Questioning.” (ECF No. 48.) Defendants' opposition or other response was therefore due on or before March 27, 2023.
Currently before the Court is Defendants' motion for a thirty-day extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's motion, filed March 24, 2023. (ECF No. 49.) Defense counsel declares that they are actively communicating with California State Prison, Sacramento to obtain an update and supporting documentation regarding the status of Plaintiff's property as well as his outgoing legal mail logs concerning the discovery requests reference in the motion, as Defendants did not receive those discovery requests. The investigation is presently on-going, and because counsel has not completed the investigation, they are unable to respond to all of the allegations in Plaintiff's motion regarding his property and discovery requests since his transfer to the custody of the Department of State Hospitals. Defendants therefore request an extension of time, up to and including April 28, 2023, to respond to Plaintiff's motion. (Id.)
Plaintiff has not had the opportunity to file a response to Defendants' request for extension of time, but the Court finds a response unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(1).
Upon review of the request, the Court finds good cause to grant the requested extension of time. The Court further finds that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by brief the extension granted here.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's motion, (ECF No. 49), is GRANTED;
2. Defendants' opposition or other response to Plaintiff's motion is due on or before April 28, 2023; and
3. Plaintiff's reply, if any, shall be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of filing of Defendants' opposition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.