Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05016/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05016-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Order Granting Extension of Time Within Which to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.14\Taylor016misc.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER A. LUGO, et

al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 14-5016 LHK (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN

WHICH TO FILE A

DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR

NOTICE REGARDING SUCH

MOTION

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an amended civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 13, 2015, the court screened plaintiff’s amended

complaint and directed defendants to file a dispositive motion or notice regarding such motion

with respect to the cognizable claim that defendants Correctional Officers A. Lugo and R.

Morales, and Correctional Counselor J. Jackson violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition

against cruel and unusual punishment. On August 18, 2015, defendants filed a request that the

court screen plaintiff’s amended complaint and modify the briefing schedule. 

The court’s August 13, 2015, order screened plaintiff’s amended complaint, which is the

operative complaint. As the court stated in its order, defendants are directed to file a dispositive

motion or notice regarding such motion with respect to the cognizable claim that defendants

Correctional Officers A. Lugo and R. Morales, and Correctional Counselor J. Jackson violated

Case 5:14-cv-05016-LHK Document 34 Filed 09/21/15 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

Order Granting Extension of Time Within Which to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.14\Taylor016misc.wpd 2

the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Because defendants

were uncertain as to whether the amended complaint was the operative complaint, the court

grants defendants’ request for a modification of the briefing schedule.

No later than sixty (60) days from the filing date of this order, defendants shall file a

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the cognizable claim

as stated above. If defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary

judgment, they shall so inform the court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due.

Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the court and served on

defendants no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date defendants’ motion is filed. 

Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after plaintiff’s opposition is

filed. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: LUCY H. KOH 

United States District Judge

9/18/2015

Case 5:14-cv-05016-LHK Document 34 Filed 09/21/15 Page 2 of 2