Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00083/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00083-3/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

Plaintiff Ivan Lee Matthews (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.) This case currently proceeds on Plaintiff’s fourth amendment complaint 

alleging retaliation and denial of access to the courts in violation of the First Amendment, against 

Defendants Liles, Sherrett and Cable. Defendants’ response to the fourth amended complaint is 

currently due on or before May 10, 2016. (ECF No. 25.) 

On May 9, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for an order revoking Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis 

status under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) (“three-strike motion”). (ECF No. 26.) Concurrently with the threestrike motion, Defendants filed the instant ex-parte application for an enlargement of time in which to

file a response to Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint. (ECF No. 27.) Defendants seek to extend their 

IVAN LEE MATTHEWS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

R. LILES, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00083-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME 

TO FILE RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 27)

Case 1:14-cv-00083-AWI-BAM Document 28 Filed 05/10/16 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

deadline to respond to the fourth amended complaint until thirty (30) days after a final ruling on the 

three-strike motion is issued, if the case is not dismissed. Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants’ 

application, but the Court finds no response necessary and that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the 

Court’s consideration of the requested extension. Local Rule 230(l).

The Court finds good cause to grant Defendants’ requested extension of time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b)(4). The Court takes no position at this time on the merits of Defendants’ three-strike motion. 

However, as Defendants argue, the three-strike motion, if granted, may eliminate the need for a 

responsive pleading here, and Plaintiff may be required to pay the filing fee prior to proceeding with this 

lawsuit. Judicial economy is best served by avoiding the burden or expenses of further litigation in this 

matter until the three-strike motion is resolved. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendants’ request for an enlargement of time (ECF No. 27) is granted; and,

2. Defendants shall file their response to the forth amended complaint within thirty (30) days of 

a final order on the three-strike motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00083-AWI-BAM Document 28 Filed 05/10/16 Page 2 of 2