Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01595/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01595-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PETER T. HARRELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HORNBROOK COMMUNITY 

SERVICES DISTRICT, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-1595 KJM GGH PS 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with this civil rights action seeking relief pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988. 

Plaintiff has filed an objection to defendant Winston’s motion to dismiss and to strike, as 

well as an alternative request for extension of time of forty-five days in which to respond to the 

motion. Plaintiff’s objections to defendant’s motion are that the motion to dismiss and motion to 

strike are combined, that they include improper requests for judicial notice, that they argue facts 

that are not in the complaint, that they hold plaintiff to a higher standard of pleading than is 

provided by Fed. R.Civ.P. 8, and that they misrepresent certain facts. Plaintiff’s assertions are 

either unfounded or inappropriately brought as objections. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Pro se 

pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 

595-96 (1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff 

Case 2:14-cv-01595-KJM-GGH Document 20 Filed 04/01/15 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

may raise his objections within his opposition, for which he will be granted a limited extension of 

time to file. 

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s objection and request for extension of time, filed March 25, 2015, (ECF No. 

18), is granted in part and denied in part. 

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file an 

opposition. Defendant’s reply, if any, shall be filed within seven days thereafter. 

3. Defendant Winston’s motion to dismiss and to strike, (ECF No. 14), is vacated from 

the calendar for April 16, 2015, and will be taken under submission after all briefs are filed. The 

matter will be re-scheduled for hearing only if the court determines a hearing is necessary. 

Dated: March 31, 2015 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

 

 

GGH:076/Harrell1595.eot 

Case 2:14-cv-01595-KJM-GGH Document 20 Filed 04/01/15 Page 2 of 2