Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02458/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02458-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

3:16-cv-02458-MMA-BLM 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHARLES HOLMES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ESTOCK, et al., 

Defendants. 

 Case No. 3:16-cv-02458-MMA-BLM 

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME 

[Doc. No. 111] 

 

 Plaintiff Charles Holmes, a California inmate, brings this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment right to 

adequate medical care. Plaintiff, proceeding through counsel, has filed a Third Amended 

Complaint (“TAC”) against Defendants. See Doc. No. 81. Defendants move for 

summary judgment as to all claims. See Doc. No. 96. To date, for reasons set forth in an 

order issued by the Court on January 29, 2020, see Doc. No. 110, Plaintiff has not filed a 

response in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment despite being 

granted multiple extensions of time in which to do so. See Doc. Nos. 100, 102, 110. 

Plaintiff now moves for an additional extension of time in which to file a response 

in opposition to Defendants’ motion. See Doc. No. 111. Plaintiff’s counsel has 

submitted a declaration in support of the ex parte motion. See id. Plaintiff’s counsel sets 

forth several grounds in his declaration regarding the failure to file a response brief, and 

states that he intends to withdraw as counsel of record. As such, Plaintiff’s counsel 

Case 3:16-cv-02458-MMA-BLM Document 112 Filed 02/14/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

3:16-cv-02458-MMA-BLM 

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

requests that the Court grant Plaintiff an additional sixty (60) days in which to file a 

response brief, either proceeding through new counsel or pro se. 

As the Court has previously explained, “a summary judgment motion must be 

decided on the merits, and it ‘must be denied on no other grounds than that the movant 

has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating the absence of triable issues.’” Doc. No. 

110 at 2 (citing Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993)). The 

Court prefers not to proceed in this matter unless absolutely necessary without a 

substantive response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s ex parte motion. Plaintiff, proceeding 

through counsel or pro se, must file a response in opposition to Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment on or before April 17, 2020. If Plaintiff files a timely response, 

Defendants may file a reply in support of their motion on or before April 30, 2020. 

In addition, if Plaintiff retains new counsel to represent him in this action, he must 

file a Notice of Substitution of Counsel as soon thereafter as practicable. If Plaintiff does 

not retain new counsel and wishes to proceed pro se, Plaintiff must file a Notice 

substituting himself as counsel of record. If Plaintiff does not retain new counsel and 

does not wish to proceed pro se, Plaintiff’s current counsel of record must file a Motion 

to Withdraw as Counsel. The appropriate Notice of Substitution or Motion to Withdraw 

must be filed on or before April 3, 2020. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: February 14, 2020 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

 

Case 3:16-cv-02458-MMA-BLM Document 112 Filed 02/14/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2