UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 3, 2012
MONTE HANEY, PLAINTIFF,
DARREL G. ADAMS, ET AL.,
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 54; 67) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
I. Procedural History
Plaintiff Monte Haney ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on July 5, 2007. Doc. 1. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's first amended complaint filed on July 16, 2008, for: 1) excessive force on December 14, 2006, in violation of the Eighth Amendment by defendants J.G. Oaks and D. Silva; 2) deprivation of outdoor exercise from December 15, 2006 to March 15, 2007, in violation of the Eighth Amendment by defendants R. Botello, M. Rickman, F. Oliver, G. Torres, T. Cano; and 3) deprivation of outdoor exercise of African-American inmates in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause by defendants R. Botello, M. Rickman, F. Oliver, G. Torres, T. Cano. Doc. 22; Doc. 28; Doc. 32.
On June 21, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 54; Doc. 55. On August 8, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file a response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Doc. 64. On August 22, 2011, the Court relieved Plaintiff of the obligation to respond to Defendants' motion for summary judgment until pending discovery motions were resolved. Doc. 67. On December 20, 2011, the Court issued an order which resolved all pending discovery motions upon discovering that they were filed after the discovery and scheduling deadline previously set by the Court. Doc. 80.
Accordingly, as there exist no pending discovery motions within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment filed on June 21, 2011. Doc. 54; Doc. 55. As Plaintiff has been granted previous extensions, no further extensions of time will be considered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.