From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Runnels

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 16, 2008
Case No. 2:02-cv-02645 ALA (PC) (E.D. Cal. May. 16, 2008)

Opinion

Case No. 2:02-cv-02645 ALA (PC).

May 16, 2008


ORDER


Defendants have filed two motions for summary judgment. On April 22, 2008, Defendant Rohlfing filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 144). Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to respond to Defendant Rohlfing's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 150). Good cause having been found, the request is granted.

On April 23, 2008, Defendants Alameida, Alexander, Bainbridge, Blankenship, Brewer, Cole, Davey, Feliciano, Felker, Fiegener, Harrison, Hibbitts, Jackson, Johnson, Kopec, Leighton, Lucas, Lynn, Malfi, Martin, Norlin, Quiggle, Rianda, Runnels, Surges, Weeks and Wright filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 146). Plaintiff has also requested an extension of time to respond to this motion (Doc. No. 150). Good cause having been found, the request is granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall have up to and including June 27, 2008, to file a response to both motions for summary judgment; and
2. Defendants shall file a reply to Plaintiff's responses to the motions for summary judgment by July 7, 2008.


Summaries of

Brown v. Runnels

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 16, 2008
Case No. 2:02-cv-02645 ALA (PC) (E.D. Cal. May. 16, 2008)
Case details for

Brown v. Runnels

Case Details

Full title:GREGORY L. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. D.L. RUNNELS, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: May 16, 2008

Citations

Case No. 2:02-cv-02645 ALA (PC) (E.D. Cal. May. 16, 2008)