From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burgos v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 7, 2012
No. CIV S-09-3276-MCE-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2012)

Opinion

No. CIV S-09-3276-MCE-CMK-P

08-07-2012

RICHARD MANUEL BURGOS, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW L. CATE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants' request for supplemental briefing on the pending motion to dismiss (Doc. 42).

Defendants filed the pending motion to dismiss without providing the contemporaneous notice now required by the Ninth Circuit pursuant to Woods v. Carey, 2012 WL 2626912 (th Cir. July 6, 2012). Accordingly, the defendants request the court allow time for additional briefing on the motion to dismiss now that the proper notice has been provided. Good cause appearing, this request is granted.

Plaintiff may file a supplemental opposition to the motion to dismiss within 30 days from the date of this order. Defendants may file a supplemental reply within 15 days after any opposition by plaintiff is filed with the court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Burgos v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 7, 2012
No. CIV S-09-3276-MCE-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2012)
Case details for

Burgos v. Cate

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD MANUEL BURGOS, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW L. CATE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 7, 2012

Citations

No. CIV S-09-3276-MCE-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2012)