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.

Fred Price v. S. R. Cunningham

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 19, 2012

FRED PRICE,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
S. R. CUNNINGHAM, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS ' MOTIO N FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF No. 74)

Plaintiff Fred Price ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dispositive motions in this action were due on October 1, 2012. (ECF No. 53.) On September 27, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for an extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 70.) On September 28, 2012, the Magistrate Judge found good cause and granted Defendants motion and the dispositive motion deadline was extended to October 8, 2012. (ECF No. 28.) On October 8, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 72.) On October 9, 2012, a deposition transcript and Plaintiff's opposition to the order extending the motion for summary judgment were filed. (ECF No. 74.)

Plaintiff objects to the order granting the extension of time because he was not granted an opportunity to oppose the motion. Plaintiff states that Defendants have deceived the Court and had sufficient time to file their motion for summary judgment prior to the dispositive motion deadline. Plaintiff requests the order granting the extension of time be reversed.

Plaintiff does not set forth any facts to support his allegation that Defendants have attempted to deceive the Court. Further, the dispositive motion deadline was October 1, 2012, and Plaintiff is not prejudiced by the one week extension of time to allow Defendant Mullins, who was unavailable prior to the dispositive motion deadline, to review the motion and sign pertinent documents.

The Court has conducted a de novo review and finds that good cause existed to modify the scheduling order. Plaintiff's request to reverse the order issued September 28, 2012, is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20121019

© 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.