UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 4, 2010
THOMAS GOOLSBY, PLAINTIFF,
CARRASCO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WITHIN TWENTY DAYS (Docs. 3, 15)
ORDER GRANTING RULE 56(F) MOTION (Doc. 23) OPPOSITION DUE BY JULY 20, 2010
Plaintiff Thomas Goolsby ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's complaint, filed September 17, 2009, against Defendant Gonzales for conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, and Defendant's motion for extension of time to file an opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
I. Preliminary Injunction Motion
On September 17, 2009, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of T.R.O. And Order to Show Cause." (Doc. 3.) Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court construes this as a motion for preliminary injunction. On January 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order adjudicating this motion. (Doc. 15.) Because Defendant has appeared in this action, the Court will require Defendant to respond to the motion.
Accordingly, Defendant is HEREBY ORDERED to respond to Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, filed September 17, 2009, within twenty days from the date of service of this order. Plaintiff's reply, if any, is due within fourteen days after being served with Defendant's response.
II. Motion For Extension of Time To File Opposition
On May 3, 2010, Defendant filed an ex parte motion for an extension of time to July 20, 2010, for filing an opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 23.) Defendant contends that this motion is necessary pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). Rule 56(f) provides:
If a party opposing the motion shows by affidavit that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may:
(1) deny the motion;
(2) order a continuance to enable affidavits to be obtained, depositions to be taken, or other discovery to be undertaken; or
(3) issue any other just order.
The Court opened discovery on March 31, 2010. Defendant's counsel attests that discovery has yet to be completed in this case, and Plaintiff has not been deposed. (Rebecca L. Bach Decl.) Defendant has presented good cause for an extension of time to file an opposition.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Rule 56(f) motion is GRANTED. Defendant is granted up to and including July 20, 2010, in which to file his opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's reply, if any, is due within fourteen (14) days after Defendant's response is served.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.