Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01931/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01931-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORRIN CARR,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01931-LJO-GBC (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR CONTINUANCE OF DEFENDANTS’

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

EXTENSION

(ECF Nos. 54 & 55)

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DUE

SEPTEMBER 6, 2011

ORDER

Plaintiff Orrin Carr is a state prison proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 24, 2011, Defendants filed a

Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”). (ECF No. 48.) On July 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a

motion entitled “Motion for Continuance of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment until

Discovery is Complete”. (ECF No. 54.) In it, Plaintiff states that he cannot complete his

opposition to Defendants’ MSJ without access to documents requested in discovery. 

Plaintiff further states that Defendants are in possession of these documents. Plaintiff

states that “the Court has not yet made a ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for production of

documents.” Plaintiff then requests an extension of time to file an opposition until after the

Court issues its order.

The Court has reviewed its record of actions and did not find any motions for

Case 1:08-cv-01931-LJO-SAB Document 56 Filed 08/01/11 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

production of documents that the Court has not issued an order for. At this point, the only

motion pending is Defendants’ MSJ. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for a stay is denied.

Plaintiff also filed a second Motion for Extension of Time to File an Opposition to

Defendants’ Motion. (ECF No. 55.) Plaintiff has presented good cause to the Court.

Thus, he is granted an extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants’ Motion. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Continuance is DENIED; 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension is GRANTED;

3. Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is due

September 6, 2011; and

4. No further extensions of time will be given.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 1, 2011 

1j0bbc UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

-2-

Case 1:08-cv-01931-LJO-SAB Document 56 Filed 08/01/11 Page 2 of 2