Opinion
2:19-cv-2216 TLN CKD P
02-16-2023
ERNEST LEE VADEN, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT L. MAYES, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Several matters are before the court.
Plaintiff has filed requests for an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Good cause appearing, those requests will be granted and plaintiff's January 31, 2022, opposition will be deemed timely. The court notes that plaintiff has also requested that the court delay consideration of the motion for summary judgment until after the court resolves two pending motions to compel further responses to plaintiff's requests for production of documents and a motion for leave to amend. Plaintiff is advised that the court will resolve the motions to compel and the motion to amend before the motion for summary judgment and the court will consider granting plaintiff leave to amend his opposition to the motion for summary judgment when the court rules on the outstanding motions to compel and for leave to amend.
Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking leave to propound one interrogatory upon some undisclosed defendant. Plaintiff has conducted extensive discovery in this matter as any review to the court's record reveals, and discovery is closed with the exception of plaintiff's two pending motions to compel further production of documents. Because plaintiff does not show good cause for permitting more discovery, nor good cause for his delay in seeking a response to the interrogatory submitted, his motion will be denied.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for an extension of time to file a declaration in support of his motion for summary judgment. Good cause appearing, that request will be granted.
Defendants have filed a motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief concerning their motion for summary judgment. Good cause appearing, that request will be granted.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motions for an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 141, 142) are granted;
2. Plaintiff's January 31, 2022, opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment is deemed timely;
3. Plaintiff's motion to propound one interrogatory (ECF No. 143) is denied;
4. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file a declaration in support of his motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 145) is granted;
5. Plaintiff's February 8, 2023, declaration in support of his motion for summary judgment is deemed timely;
6. Defendants' request for an extension of time to file reply brief concerning their motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 149) is granted;
7. Defendants' reply brief is due April 14, 2023.