Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00294/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00294-24/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

CHRISTOPHER DICKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOMEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-00294-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR CLARIFICATION AND MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 86)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Christopher Dickson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds 

against Defendants Gomez, Rios, and Martinez for excessive force and against Defendants 

Duncan and Esparza for violations of Plaintiff’s due process rights.

On November 8, 2021, Defendants Esparza and Duncan filed a motion for summary 

judgment on the grounds that they did not violate Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process 

rights during the Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) process for Plaintiff’s RVR for battery on a 

peace officer at Kern Valley State Prison. (ECF No. 83.) Plaintiff’s opposition is therefore due 

on or before December 2, 2021.

Currently before the Court is “Plaintiff’s Request for Clarification from Court,” filed 

November 19, 2021. (ECF No. 86.) Plaintiff requests clarification in light of Defendants’ 

previously-filed motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion of administrative 

Case 1:17-cv-00294-KES-BAM Document 87 Filed 11/23/21 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

remedies, which the Court has already resolved. Plaintiff asks whether he should, and how, this 

new motion for summary judgment from Defendants should be responded to, and if a response is 

required, Plaintiff requests an extension of time to do so. Plaintiff states that his current 

institution is now on lockdown and he cannot get to the library except without a court deadline. 

(Id.) Defendants have not yet had an opportunity to file a response, but the Court finds a response 

is unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

Plaintiff’s request for clarification is granted, as follows. Plaintiff is informed that 

Defendants are entitled to file a motion for summary judgment regarding the merits of this action, 

even though they previously filed a motion for summary judgment regarding the issue of 

exhaustion. Plaintiff is required to file a response, as explained in the Rand warning attached to 

the summary judgment motion, (ECF No. 83-1), and Local Rule 260(a).

Having considered the moving papers, the Court finds good cause to grant the requested 

extension. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). As Plaintiff has not requested a specific extension of time, the 

Court finds an extension of thirty days is appropriate. The Court further finds that Defendants

will not be prejudiced by the brief extension granted here.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for clarification and motion for extension of time, (ECF 

No. 86), is HEREBY GRANTED. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment is due within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order. Defendants’ reply, 

if any, is due no more than seven (7) days following the docketing of Plaintiff’s opposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-00294-KES-BAM Document 87 Filed 11/23/21 Page 2 of 2