IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 19, 2012
RAYMOND D. JACKSON, PLAINTIFF,
STEVEN FLETCHER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff's appointed counsel has filed an ex parte request to continue the hearing date on the motion for summary judgment filed December 6, 2012, by defendants Osman, Bick and Aguilera, from January 10, 2013, to January 31, 2013. Plaintiff's counsel states that defendants' counsel denied his request to stipulate to a continuation of the hearing. (See n.1, infra.) Absent continuation of the hearing, plaintiff's opposition is due by December 27, 2012.
Plaintiff's counsel requests that the subject hearing be continued because defendants' motion is voluminous and involves complex legal issues; counsel is representing plaintiff on a pro bono basis and has limited available resources to conduct the research necessary to prepare an adequate response to defendants' motion, particularly during this holiday season; counsel is securing the services of a third year law student to assist in this case, but the student is not available until January 6, 2013.
Also pending in this action is a motion to stay filed by defendant Pletcher. (Dkt. No. 162.) Plaintiff has timely filed an opposition to that motion (Dkt. No. 164), while defendants Osman, Aguilera, and Bick have filed a statement of non-opposition "provided" the court first decides their motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 166). A hearing on defendant Pletcher's motion to stay is scheduled before the undersigned on January 3, 2013. One additional defendant in this action, defendant Hall, does not appear to be participating in the presently pending matters.
The court does not perceive the urgency in hearing defendants' motion for summary judgment.*fn1 The current deadline for hearing dispositive motions is March 6, 2013. (Dkt. No. 158.) Moreover, the court has not yet determined whether a stay should be entered in this action and, if so, whether it should be limited to defendant Pletcher. The availability and resources of pro bono counsel are relevant considerations that support plaintiff's instant request.
Accordingly, for good cause shown, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's request (Dkt. No. 167) to continue the hearing date on the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Osman, Aguilera, and Bick, is granted.
2. Absent further order of this court, the hearing on the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Osman, Aguilera, and Bick (Dkt. No. 163), is rescheduled for Thursday, January 31, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 25.
3. Plaintiff shall file and serve his opposition to the subject motion on or before January 17, 2013.
4. Defendants may file and serve a reply brief on or before January 24, 2013.