IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 18, 2012
THORNELL BROWN, PLAINTIFF,
R. J. WILLIAMS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S FIRST MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Motion#62) 45-DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Thornell Brown ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis ("IFP") in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's complaint, filed May 4, 2009, against Defendants Williams and Gonzales ("Defendants") for use of excessive force and subjecting Plaintiff to unconstitutional conditions of confinement following the use of force on May 23, 2005, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Doc. 1 (Complaint); Doc. 8 (Cog. Claim Ord.).
On March 29, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 58. On June 25, 2012, the Court informed Plaintiff that he missed the deadline to file an opposition and ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition within twenty days. Doc. 61. On July 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to reply to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Doc. 62.
Plaintiff is granted forty-five (45) days from the date of service of this order in which to reply to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff is further cautioned that he needs to take appropriate steps to ensure that Plaintiff fulfills his obligation to respond to the Court's order filed on June 25, 2012. Additionally, in light of the recent decision in Woods v. Carey, Nos. 09-15548, 09-16113, 2012 WL 2626912, at *5 (9th Cir. Jul. 6, 2012), Plaintiff must be provided with "fair notice" of the requirements for opposing a dispositive motion at the time the motion is brought. The Court will provide the requisite notice by separate order issued concurrently with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.