From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Plunkett v. Parham

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 14, 2022
2:19-cv-1450 KJM AC P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2022)

Opinion

2:19-cv-1450 KJM AC P

11-14-2022

CHARLES PLUNKETT, Plaintiff, v. C. PARHAM, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff has filed a motion for a sixty-to-ninety-day extension of time to file a response to defendants' motion for summary judgment, on the grounds that her imprisonment will significantly limit her ability to respond and she has limited knowledge of the law. Good cause appearing, the motion will be granted, and plaintiff shall have an additional sixty days to file a response. Should plaintiff seek a further extension, she must explain why she needs the additional time and why she has not been able to meet the current deadline.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 49) is granted; and

2. Plaintiff shall file a response to defendants' motion for summary judgment within sixty days of the service of this order.


Summaries of

Plunkett v. Parham

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 14, 2022
2:19-cv-1450 KJM AC P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2022)
Case details for

Plunkett v. Parham

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES PLUNKETT, Plaintiff, v. C. PARHAM, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 14, 2022

Citations

2:19-cv-1450 KJM AC P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2022)