From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dickson v. Gomez

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 22, 2021
1:17-cv-00294-DAD-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2021)

Opinion

1:17-cv-00294-DAD-BAM (PC)

11-22-2021

CHRISTOPHER DICKSON, Plaintiff, v. GOMEZ, et al., Defendants.


ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 86)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Christopher Dickson (“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 against Defendants Gomez, Rios, and Martinez for excessive force and against Defendants Duncan and Esparza for violations of Plaintiff's due process rights.

On November 8, 2021, Defendants Esparza and Duncan filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that they did not violate Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights during the Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) process for Plaintiff's RVR for battery on a peace officer at Kern Valley State Prison. (ECF No. 83.) Plaintiff's opposition is therefore due on or before December 2, 2021.

Currently before the Court is “Plaintiff's Request for Clarification from Court, ” filed November 19, 2021. (ECF No. 86.) Plaintiff requests clarification in light of Defendants' previously-filed motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies, which the Court has already resolved. Plaintiff asks whether he should, and how, this new motion for summary judgment from Defendants should be responded to, and if a response is required, Plaintiff requests an extension of time to do so. Plaintiff states that his current institution is now on lockdown and he cannot get to the library except without a court deadline. (Id.) Defendants have not yet had an opportunity to file a response, but the Court finds a response is unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(1).

Plaintiff's request for clarification is granted, as follows. Plaintiff is informed that Defendants are entitled to file a motion for summary judgment regarding the merits of this action, even though they previously filed a motion for summary judgment regarding the issue of exhaustion. Plaintiff is required to file a response, as explained in the Rand warning attached to the summary judgment motion, (ECF No. 83-1), and Local Rule 260(a).

Having considered the moving papers, the Court finds good cause to grant the requested extension. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b). As Plaintiff has not requested a specific extension of time, the Court finds an extension of thirty days is appropriate. The Court further finds that Defendants will not be prejudiced by the brief extension granted here.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for clarification and motion for extension of time, (ECF No. 86), is HEREBY GRANTED. Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment is due within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order. Defendants' reply, if any, is due no more than seven (7) days following the docketing of Plaintiff's opposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Dickson v. Gomez

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 22, 2021
1:17-cv-00294-DAD-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2021)
Case details for

Dickson v. Gomez

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER DICKSON, Plaintiff, v. GOMEZ, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 22, 2021

Citations

1:17-cv-00294-DAD-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2021)