From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bradford v. Valley

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 1, 2022
2:21-CV-1414-DAD-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-CV-1414-DAD-DMC-P

11-01-2022

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, Plaintiff, v. VALLEY, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

DENNIS M. COTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion, ECF No. 51, to defer ruling on Defendants' motion to revoke Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status.

Plaintiff states his motion is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). See ECF No. 51. The Court does not agree. Rule 56(d) allows the Court to defer consideration of a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 when facts are not available to the opposing party. Because Defendants' pending motion concerns revocation of in forma pauperis status and not summary judgment, Rule 56(d) is inapplicable. The Court will, however, on its own motion grant Plaintiff an extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants' pending motion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to defer ruling under Rule 56(d), ECF No. 51, is denied;

2. Plaintiff is granted an extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants' motion, ECF No. 48, to revoke Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status; and

3. Plaintiff's opposition is due within 30 days of the date of this order.


Summaries of

Bradford v. Valley

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 1, 2022
2:21-CV-1414-DAD-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2022)
Case details for

Bradford v. Valley

Case Details

Full title:RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, Plaintiff, v. VALLEY, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 1, 2022

Citations

2:21-CV-1414-DAD-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2022)