Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00083/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00083-4/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

On May 10, 2016, the Court granted Defendants’ request to extend the time for their response 

to Plaintiff’s amended complaint until thirty (30) days after a final ruling on their motion for an order 

revoking Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status (“three-strike motion”). (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff objects to 

the order granting the extension, arguing that Defendants’ three-strike motion is insufficient. (ECF No. 

30.) Plaintiff specifically argues that certain of his cases which were dismissed did not “count” as 

strikes under the PLRA. Plaintiff further argues that he is prejudiced here by undue delay and by being 

required to respond to Defendants’ three-strike motion. Concurrently with these objections, Plaintiff 

filed a motion to deny the three-strike motion. 

Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. The Court takes no position on the merits of Defendants’ 

three-strike motion or Plaintiff’s motion to deny the three-strike motion at this time. However, as the 

Court previously explained, judicial economy is best served by considering Defendants’ three-strike 

motion, which may result in a dismissal without prejudice of this action, before expending further 

IVAN LEE MATTHEWS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

R. LILES, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 30)

Case 1:14-cv-00083-AWI-BAM Document 31 Filed 05/23/16 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

resources managing this litigation. Should Defendants’ motion be denied, Plaintiff will not be 

prejudiced by the brief delay in litigation caused by the briefing and evaluation of the three-strike 

motion. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections to the order granting Defendants’ request for an extension 

of time to respond to the amended complaint, (ECF No. 30), are OVERRULED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00083-AWI-BAM Document 31 Filed 05/23/16 Page 2 of 2