Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01709/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01709-10/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

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

LEONARD RANSOM, JR., 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

DANNY HERRERA, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:11-cv-01709-LJO-EPG (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT 

BRANNUM’S MOTION TO DISMISS

(ECF NO. 54)

Leonard Ransom, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 7, 2016, defendant Brannum filed a motion to 

dismiss. (ECF No. 38). On September 1, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition 

or a statement of non-opposition to defendant Brannum’s motion to dismiss within thirty days 

of the service of the order. (ECF No. 47). On September 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response to 

that order, stating that he never received a copy of defendant Brannum’s motion to dismiss and 

asking for a copy of the motion. (ECF No. 49). On September 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a 

motion requesting a copy of defendant Brannum’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 50). On 

September 26, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for a copy of defendant Brannum’s 

motion to dismiss, and gave Plaintiff thirty days to file an opposition or a statement of nonopposition to the motion. (ECF No. 51). On October 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed his opposition to 

Case 1:11-cv-01709-LJO-EPG Document 55 Filed 10/19/16 Page 1 of 2
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

defendant Brannum’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 52). On October 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed 

what the Court construes as a motion to file a supplemental brief in opposition to defendant 

Brannum’s motion to dismiss (“the Motion”). (ECF No. 54).

According to the Motion, Plaintiff requests the opportunity to file a supplemental brief 

in opposition to defendant Brannum’s motion to dismiss because, upon further research, 

Plaintiff noticed that he did not brief a case that is relevant to the Court’s determination of the 

motion to dismiss and that he briefed two cases that are not relevant. The Court finds good 

cause to grant Plaintiff the opportunity to file a supplemental brief. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of the service of this order to file a 

supplemental brief in opposition to defendant Brannum’s motion to 

dismiss; 

2. Plaintiff’s supplemental brief must state whether it is an additional brief, 

or whether it is intended to replace the prior opposition he filed; and

3. Defendant Brannum has seven days from the date of the service of the 

supplemental brief to file a reply to the supplemental brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 19, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01709-LJO-EPG Document 55 Filed 10/19/16 Page 2 of 2