Weiss v. City of Santa Rosa Police Department et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01639

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting {{81}} Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re {{77}} MOTION to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint. Responses due by 11/2/2016. Replies due by 11/9/2016. Court VACATES hearing on motion to dismiss set November 15, 2016.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 TERRY L WEISS, 7 Case No. 15-cv-01639-YGR Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 9 FOR AN EXTENSION TO FILE RESPONSE TO CITY OF SANTA ROSA POLICE COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO 10 DEPARTMENT, ET AL., DISMISS 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 81 12 Plaintiff Terry Weiss, proceeding pro se, brings this action against the Santa Rosa Police Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Department, individuals associated with the police department individually and in their official 14 capacity, and certain Sonoma County entities and individuals herein referred to as the "County 15 Defendants."1 Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint on September 19, 2016. (Dkt. No. 76.) 16 On September 30, 2016, the County Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims against them. 17 (Dkt. No. 77.) Plaintiff's response was due on October 14, 2016. On October 21, 2016, County 18 Defendants filed a Notice of No Opposition (Dkt. No. 80), and on October 24, 2016, plaintiff filed 19 a Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 81), which 20 County Defendants oppose (Dkt. No. 82). 21 In the interest of justice, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's request for an extension to file a 22 response. Plaintiff's response must be filed no later than November 2, 2016, and County 23 Defendants shall file their reply seven days thereafter. The Court notes, however, that plaintiff has 24 missed several deadlines already, and the Court has previously had to issue an Order to Show 25 26 1 The County Defendants specifically refer to the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office 27 (erroneously sued as "Sonoma County Sheriff's Depart"), the County of Sonoma (erroneously sued as "Main Adult Detention Facility"), County Sheriff Steve Freitas, and County Supervisor 28 Efren Carrillo. 1 Cause because of plaintiff's failure to meet such deadlines. (See Dkt. No. 48.) Additionally, on 2 June 24, 2016, the Court granted plaintiff's request for permission to file documents 3 electronically, which should have better facilitated her ability to meet her deadlines. (Dkt. No. 4 69.) Thus, the Court will not grant any further requests for extensions from plaintiff, absent a 5 compelling reason for such request. 6 The Court also VACATES the hearing on County Defendants' motion to dismiss, currently 7 set for November 15, 2016. 8 This Order terminates Docket Number 81. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: October 27, 2016 11 ______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2