UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 26, 2012
STEVE GOMEZ, CDCR # AG-3761, PLAINTIFF,
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge United States District Court
ORDER: 1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AS MOOT [ECF No. 49] AND 2) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER [ECF No. 50]
On September 11, 2012, Defendant Matthew Carpenter filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or partial Summary Judgment pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 56(a) (ECF No. 40). On September 17, 2012, the Court provided Plaintiff with notice of Defendant's Motion pursuant to Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988) and Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). Plaintiff was directed to file and serve his Opposition no later than October 12, 2012 (ECF No. 41 at 2).
On October 29, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Postpone Summary Judgment, and granted him until November 30, 2012 to file his Opposition (ECF No. 41).
Plaintiff did not file his Opposition; instead on December 7, 2012, he filed another Motion requesting one "final" extension of time, "up to an including December 17, 2012," to file his Opposition (ECF No. 49). In addition, on December 12, 2012, Defendant Carpenter filed an ex parte Motion to Amend, requesting the Court vacate the remaining pretrial dates set out in the February 6, 2012 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 25) pending the resolution of his Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50).
Before the Court had an opportunity to rule on either request, Plaintiff submitted his Opposition (ECF No. 52), which the Court accepted for filing despite its untimeliness. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987) ("'[S]trict time limits . . . ought not to be insisted upon' where restraints resulting from a pro se prisoner plaintiff's incarceration prevent timely compliance with court deadlines.") (citation omitted). Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time is now moot.
In light of these extensions, the Court also finds good cause to vacate all pending pretrial dates pending disposition of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. See Wong v. Regents of University of California, 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005) (courts have authority to "manage the cases before it efficiently and effectively" and to permit exceptions to previously established deadlines for "good reason.").
Conclusion and Order
Good reason having been shown, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 49) as moot; GRANTS Defendant until Friday, January 11, 2013 to file his Reply; and GRANTS Defendant's ex parte Motion to Alter/Amend the Court's February 6, 2012 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 50). All remaining pretrial dates are VACATED pending resolution of Defendant's pending Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 40).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.