Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01659/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01659-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MALCOLM TANDY LAMON STROUD,

Plaintiff,

v.

PRUITT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-01659-NONE-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ NUNC 

PRO TUNC REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 35)

Reply Deadline: February 27, 2020

Plaintiff Malcolm Tandy Lamon Stroud (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action 

currently proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendant Pruitt for sexual 

abuse in violation of the Eighth Amendment and against Defendants Pruitt and Smith for 

discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

On December 9, 2019, Defendants Pruitt and Smith filed a motion for summary judgment 

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 29.) Following an extension of time, 

Plaintiff filed his opposition on February 10, 2020. (ECF Nos. 33, 34.) Defendants’ reply, if any, 

was therefore due on or before February 17, 2020.

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ request for an extension of time to file their 

reply, filed February 20, 2020. (ECF No. 35.) Although Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to 

Case 1:17-cv-01659-JLT-BAM Document 36 Filed 02/21/20 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

respond to Defendant’s request, the Court finds a response unnecessary. Local Rule 230(l).

The declaration of counsel filed in support of Defendants’ motion explains that despite 

receiving electronic notification of the filing of Plaintiff’s opposition on February 11, 2020,

counsel’s workload in other matters prevented her from reviewing and evaluating plaintiff’s 

opposition or preparing a request for extension of time to file a reply until February 20. 

Defendants therefore request a one-week extension of time, nunc pro tunc, to and including 

February 27, 2020, to file a reply. (ECF No. 35.)

Having considered the request, the Court finds it appropriate to modify the briefing 

schedule in this matter. The Court further finds that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the brief 

extension requested here.

Accordingly, Defendants’ nunc pro tunc request for an extension of time, (ECF No. 35), is 

HEREBY GRANTED. Defendants’ reply to Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary 

judgment is due on or before February 27, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-01659-JLT-BAM Document 36 Filed 02/21/20 Page 2 of 2