Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bowman v. Schwarzenegger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 29, 2009

GARY STEVEN BOWMAN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER (IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA), SUE ORSON, AND MATTHEW L. CATE (IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION), DEFENDANTS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF KELCIE M. GOSLING; ORDER

[No Hearing Date Set]

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Defendants Arnold Schwarzenegger, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of California, Matthew Cate, in his official capacity as Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), and Sue Orson, in her capacity as Unit Supervisor, Chico Parole Unit for CDCR (collectively, "defendants") hereby request a two-week extension of time in which to file and serve their opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by plaintiff Gary Stephen Bowman.

Defendants' opposition is currently due on April 30, 2009. Defendants have not previously requested any extensions. If the Court grants the requested extension, defendant's opposition will be due no later than May 14, 2009.

As shown in the attached declaration of Kelcie M. Gosling, good cause exists for granting this extension under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1). Although defendants' counsel has been working diligently to prepare defendants' opposition, counsel is responsible for preparing filings in six other matters this week. Granting the extension will provide counsel with additional time in which to prepare a meaningful opposition to Mr. Bowman's motion.

Counsel has been unable to obtain a stipulation extending time pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 6-144(a), as counsel does not have a telephone number for Mr. Bowman.

For these reasons, defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their request for a two-week extension.

MENNEMEIER, GLASSMAN & STROUD LLP KENNETH C. MENNEMEIER KELCIE M. GOSLING Kelcie M. Gosling, attorneys for Defendants Arnold Schwarzenegger (in his capacity as Governor of the State of California), Sue Orson (in her capacity as Unit Supervisor, Chico Parole Unit, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation), and Matthew L. Cate (in his capacity as Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)

DECLARATION OF KELCIE M. GOSLING

I, Kelcie M. Gosling, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in California and before this Court. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called as a witness, would and could testify competently as to those facts.

2. I have been working diligently to prepare defendants' opposition to plaintiff Gary Steven Bowman's motion for summary judgment. However, this week I am responsible for preparing filings in six other matters, as follows:

a. Kleinhammer v. California Department of Corrections, Case No. CV-08-3843 JFW (JTL), United States District Court, Central District of California -- Supplemental Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss;

b. People v. Romero, Case No. A120551, California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District -- Application to File Brief of Amici Curaie;

c. In re Jurcso, Case No. H35750B, Superior Court of California, County of Alameda -- Informal Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus;

d. In re Miller, Case No, M-12400 X A, Superior Court of California, County of Orange -- Informal Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus;

e. In re Malone, Case No. BH005836, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles -- Informal Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and

f. In re Landcraft, Case No. M-12332 X A, Superior Court of California, County of Orange -- Informal Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

3. Granting a two-week extension will provide me with the additional time necessary to prepare a meaningful response to Mr. Bowman's summary judgment motion.

4. I have been unable to obtain a stipulation from Mr. Bowman agreeing to this extension, as I do not have a telephone number for Mr. Bowman.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Kelcie M. Gosling

ORDER

Good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' application for extension (docket no. 106) is granted. Defendants' opposition brief shall be filed no later than May 14, 2009.

20090429

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.