Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00446/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00446-51/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

KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT,

Plaintiff,

v.

GALLAGHER, et al.,

Defendants.

1:11-cv-00446-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ FIRST 

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

RESPOND TO THE COURT’S 8/10/15 ORDER

(ECF No. 206)

Plaintiff Kevin Darnell Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

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

proceeds against Defendant Romero for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendants Gallagher and Romero for 

conspiracy, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and failure to protect in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment. 

On August 10, 2015, the Court directed Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s motion for an 

order to show cause. (ECF No. 206.) As a result, Defendants’ response is currently due on 

August 31, 2015. On August 31, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for an extension of time to 

Case 1:11-cv-00446-BAM Document 212 Filed 09/01/15 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

comply with the Court’s August 10, 2015 order. (ECF No. 211.) In support, Defense Counsel 

submitted a declaration stating an additional fourteen days is needed to sufficiently review 

Plaintiff’s motions and related filings and to prepare a response. (Id. at 2.) Defense Counsel 

further explains that he was delayed in preparing a response to Plaintiff’s motion due to pressing

business in other matters, including preparing for a trial and filing dispositive motions in other 

cases. (Id. at 2-3.) 

The Court finds good cause to grant the requested extensions of time for Defendants to 

comply with this Court’s August 10, 2015 order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The Court further 

finds that no response to this motion is necessary and thus it is deemed admitted, Local Rule 

230(l), and that this short extension of time will not prejudice Plaintiff.

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to comply with the Court’s August 10, 2015 

order is GRANTED. Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s motion for an order to show cause is due 

on or before fourteen days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00446-BAM Document 212 Filed 09/01/15 Page 2 of 2