Brown v. Sisto

Full title: RICKY LAMONT BROWN, Plaintiff, v. D.K. SISTO, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Mar 2, 2009

No. CIV S-07-1949 FCD GGH P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2009)

Opinion

No. CIV S-07-1949 FCD GGH P.

March 2, 2009

ORDER

GREGORY HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge

On January 20, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to complete discovery. Plaintiff does not state the length of extension of time he is seeking. For this reason, this motion is denied without prejudice. Within fifteen days of the date of this order, plaintiff may file a motion for extension of time which identifies the length of extension of time sought.

On January 20, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions. Plaintiff argues that defendants should be sanctioned for filing an untimely response to his amended complaint. On December 10, 2008, the court ordered defendants to file a response to the amended complaint within twenty days. On December 30, 2008, defendants filed an answer. On December 29, 2008, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On January 15, 2009, the court deemed defendants' December 30, 2008, answer as addressing the second amended complaint. Because defendants timely answered the first and second amended complaints, the motion for sanctions is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions (no. 34) is denied;

2. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time (no. 35) is denied without prejudice to its refiling within fifteen days of the date of this order; defendants' opposition is due ten days thereafter.