Packnett v. Alvarez et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01229

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' DISPOSITIVE MOTION; GRANTING HIS REQUEST TO FILE UNTIMELY REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO HIS MOTION FOR RECON SIDERATION by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers; granting {{55}} Motion for Leave to File; granting in part and denying in part {{56}} Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re {{47}} MOTION for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss Responses due by 11/16/2016.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 KENNETH JEROME PACKNETT, 7 Case No. 15-cv-01229-YGR (PR) Plaintiff, 8 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING v. IN PART PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR 9 EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION FERNAND ALVAREZ, et al., TO DEFENDANTS' DISPOSITIVE MOTION; 10 AND GRANTING HIS REQUEST TO FILE Defendants. UNTIMELY REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' 11 OPPOSITION TO HIS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 12 Northern District of California Before the Court is Plaintiff's request for an extension of time in which to file his United States District Court 13 opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 56. 14 Plaintiff requests an extension of time, up to and including November 16, 2016, in which to file 15 his opposition on the grounds that his library access is limited at the prison where he is 16 incarcerated. Dkt. 56 at 1. Plaintiff also requests a "[n]in[e]ty (90) day continuance from 17 December 16, 2016 until April 16, 2017 to complete his responsive pleading." Id. The Court 18 construes Plaintiff's aforementioned request as a second request for a continuance to file his 19 opposition up to and including April 16, 2017, which the Court notes is beyond his requested 20 ninety-day continuance. 21 Having read and considered Plaintiff's request, and good cause appearing, 22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for an extension of time is GRANTED 23 in part and DENIED in part. The time in which Plaintiff may file his opposition to Defendants' 24 dispositive motion will be extended up to and including November 16, 2016. Therefore, 25 Plaintiff's request for such an extension is GRANTED. However, the Court finds that Plaintiff is 26 not entitled to a second continuance, and DENIES his request for a continuance to file his 27 opposition up to and including April 16, 2017. 28 1 Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after the date Plaintiff's 2 opposition is filed. 3 Also before the Court is Plaintiff's request to file an untimely reply to Defendants' 4 opposition to his motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 55. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request and 5 directs the Clerk of the Court to file the document entitled, "Request for Leave of Court to File 6 **Untimely Reply to Defendants['] Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration," and 7 docket it as "Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for 8 Reconsideration." 9 This Order terminates Docket Nos. 55 and 56. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: October 17, 2016 12 ______________________________________ Northern District of California YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS United States District Court 13 United States District Court Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2