Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06496/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06496-3/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

TIMOTHY BUFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. VANG, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:00-CV-6496-REC-SMS-P

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF

REPLY BRIEF

(Doc. 177)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A

REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

(Doc. 179)

Plaintiff Timothy Buford (“plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 8, 2005, the court issued an order

directing that defendant’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel be filed within thirty days and

defendant’s reply to plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s motion for a protective order, if any, be

filed within fifteen days. Defendant filed an opposition on July 22, 2005, and a reply on August 5,

2005. In the reply, defendant stated in a footnote that he inadvertently reversed the two deadlines,

filing the opposition within fifteen days and the reply within thirty days. Defendant requested that

the court consider the reply despite its technically untimely filing. 

Defendant’s request shall be granted and the court will consider his reply brief. Pursuant to

Local Rule 78-230(m), defendant’s motion for a protective order has now been deemed submitted.

///

Case 1:00-cv-06496-LJO -SMS Document 180 Filed 08/10/05 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

On August 5, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file a reply to

defendant’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel. Plaintiff’s request shall be granted, and

plaintiff shall have thirty days to file his reply.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s technically untimely reply, filed August 5, 2005, will be considered by

the court; 

2. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file a reply, filed August 5, 2005, is

GRANTED; and

3. Plaintiff’s reply to defendant’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel shall be

filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06496-LJO -SMS Document 180 Filed 08/10/05 Page 2 of 2