Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06069/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06069-25/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

KORY HUNZIKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-6069-LJO DLB- PC

ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION IN OPPOSITION OF FURTHER

EXTENSIONS OF TIME

(Doc. 125)

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 is proceeding on plaintiff’s amended complaint filed

November 2, 2004 against defendants Adams, Yates, Espinosa and Cuevas for supervisory liability

and against Jennings, Cunningham and Burnias for failing to protect plaintiff from serious harm, in

violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

On September 17, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion entitled “Motion Opposing any Further

Extensions or Delays of Time Due to The Severity of Plaintiff’s Injuries and the Need for

Rehabilitation”. (Doc. 125). In his motion, plaintiff contends that this action has been unduly

delayed, and files his opposition to any further extensions or unnecessary delays filed by defendants.

The court agrees that this matter has been repeatedly delayed. Since the filing of plaintiff’s

motion however, the court notes that plaintiff himself has filed two motions seeking extensions of

time. As a result, a telephonic pre-trial conference originally scheduled for March 7, 2008 was

postponed to April 11, 2008. By court order issued separately, the pre-trial is now continued to June

Case 1:03-cv-06069-LJO -DLB Document 134 Filed 04/03/08 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

13, 2008, and the matter is set for jury trial on July 21, 2008. 

As defendants have not filed any requests for extension of time since plaintiff’s motion and

given plaintiff’s own requests for extensions, resulting in delays of this action, plaintiff’s motion is

HEREBY DISREGARDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 2, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0h UNI j8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06069-LJO -DLB Document 134 Filed 04/03/08 Page 2 of 2