Opinion
C23-5430-MJP-SKV
02-16-2024
JOSHUA LEE REDDING, Plaintiff, v. JORDAN BALETO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER RE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
S. KATE VAUGHAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action, requests additional time to respond to Defendants' pending Motion for Summary Judgment. See Dkt. 51. The Court, having considered the request and the response set forth in Defendants' reply brief, see Dkt. 52 at 3-4, herein finds and ORDERS as follows:
(1) Plaintiff states that he did not receive proper notice of or adequate time to respond to Defendants' pending Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 51 at 1. He points, for example, to his recent incarceration, a delay in his receipt of the motion, and his inability to access necessary records. Id. The Court, in order to ensure that Plaintiff has the opportunity to submit a substantive response to Defendants' motion, finds an extension of time warranted.The Court, accordingly, GRANTS Plaintiff's request for an extension and RENOTES Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 39, for consideration on March 22, 2024. Plaintiff may file a response to the motion on or before March 18, 2024 and Defendants may submit a reply to that response on or before the revised noting date.
Plaintiff also refers to circumstances leading to his inability to attend a deposition that had been scheduled to occur prior to the filing of Defendants' motion and requests the ability to attend a deposition. Dkt. 51 at 1-2. However, as they observe, see Dkt. 52 at 3, Defendants were not obligated to depose Plaintiff prior to bringing their dispositive motion.
(2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, to counsel for Defendants, and to the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman.