Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Richard Alan Lawson v. Donald Youngblood

October 4, 2012

RICHARD ALAN LAWSON,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
DONALD YOUNGBLOOD, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S URGENT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 43)

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE NOTICE AND WARNING OF REQUIREMENTS FOR OPPOSING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Richard Alan Lawson ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on June 8, 2009 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.) Defendants Embrey, Laird and Sawaske have declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 32.)

This matter proceeds on Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint claims for inadequate medical care against Defendants Laird, Chang, Sawaske, Embrey, and Clemente, and for excessive force under the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Laird. Defendants Laird, Sawaske and Embrey filed an Answer on August 1, 2012 (ECF No. 29) and a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies on September 6, 2012. (ECF No. 37.) On October 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Urgent Motion to File Responsive Pleadings (ECF No. 43), seeking an extension of time to oppose Defendants Motion to Dismiss. On October 1, 2012, Defendants Laird, Sawaske and Embrey filed a Response to Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 44), stating their non-opposition to an extension of time. The Motion is now before the Court.

II. EXTENSION OF TIME

The Court finds that Plaintiff's motion for extension of time is supported by good cause and unopposed by Defendants. Plaintiff shall within twenty-one (21) days following service of this order file his response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

III. CURRENT ADDRESS

Plaintiff in his Motion appears to take the position that his current address of record, California medical Facility, P.O. Box 2500, Vacaville, CA 95696-2500, is not correct. Plaintiff is required to maintain a current address with the Court. Local Rule 183(b) provides that:

Address Changes. A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Plaintiff shall file any necessary correction of his current address within twenty-one (21) days of service of this order.

IV. NOTICE AND WARNING

Pursuant to Woods v. Carey, Nos. 09--15548, 09--16113, 2012 WL 2626912 (9th Cir. Jul.6, 2012) and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir.2003), the Court hereby notifies Plaintiff of the following rights ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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