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.

Tracy Taylor v. Susan Hubbard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 2, 2012

TRACY TAYLOR,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
SUSAN HUBBARD, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara A. McAuliffe United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND AND DEFENDANTS SHALL FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND OR AN ORDER SCREENING THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT / (ECF No. 42)

Plaintiff Tracy Taylor is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000) ("RLUIPA"). This action is proceeding on the first amended compliant, filed July 16, 2010, against Defendants Harrington and Wegman for violation of the First Amendment and RLUIPA. The Court granted Defendants Harrington and Wegman's motion for an extension of time to respond to the first amended complaint, and a responsive pleading is due on April 25, 2012. On March 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complain and a second amended complaint was lodged. Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion to amend and a motion for an extension of time to respond.

If Plaintiff's motion to amend is granted, Defendants request sixty days from the date of service of the order screening the second amended complaint to file a responsive pleading. Alternately, Defendants request that if Plaintiff's motion to amend is denied, they be granted thirty days from the date of service of the order denying the motion to file a responsive pleading to the first amended complaint.

Defendants' motion for an extension of time is HEREBY GRANTED IN PART, and Defendants shall have thirty days from the date of service of the order denying Plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint or the order screening Plaintiff's second amended complaint to file a responsive pleading. If additional time, beyond the thirty days, is necessary to file a responsive pleading, Defendants must file a motion for an extension of time setting forth good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120402

© 1992-2012 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.