Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01974/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01974-10/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

PASQUAL GOSSELIN,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

J. TILTON, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:10-cv-01974-GSA-PC

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

(ECF No. 54.)

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF 

TIME NUNC PRO TUNC (ECF No. 55.)

ORDER DEEMING PLAINTIFF’S 

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TIMELY FILED

(ECF No. 57.)

Pasqual Gosselin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds on the First Amended 

Complaint filed by Plaintiff on December 29, 2012, against defendants R. Hubach, J. Tabor, 

and D. Latraille for adverse conditions of confinement, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 

against defendants J. Tabor and D. Latraille for use of excessive force against Plaintiff, in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment; against defendant R. Hubach for failure to protect 

Plaintiff, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against defendant D. Adams for 

implementation of policy violating Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth Amendment and rights to 

privacy. (Doc. 11.) 

Case 1:10-cv-01974-GSA Document 58 Filed 08/05/15 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

The parties to this action have consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c). (Docs. 6, 33.) Therefore, the undersigned shall conduct any 

and all proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of final judgment. 

On July 23, 2015, the court issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause, within thirty 

days, why this case should not be dismissed based on his failure to file a response to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of February 17, 2015. (ECF No. 54.) On August 

3, 2015, Plaintiff filed a response to the court’s order, a motion for extension of time, and an 

opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 55, 56, 57.) In light of Plaintiff’s 

response, the court finds good cause to discharge the order to show cause, grant the motion for 

extension of time nunc pro tunc, and deem the opposition timely filed.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that:

1. The court’s order to show cause issued on July 23, 2015, is DISCHARGED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time is GRANTED nunc pro tunc; and

3. Plaintiff’s opposition to summary judgment, filed on August 3, 2015, is deemed 

timely filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01974-GSA Document 58 Filed 08/05/15 Page 2 of 2