Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01599/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01599-20/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 Matthew James Griffin (“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 initiated this action on 

September 30, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) On December 12, 2016, Defendants Gonzales and Busch each filed 

a motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 141 and 142.) On January 5, 2017, the Court granted 

Plaintiff a forty-five (45) day extension of time to respond to these motions. (ECF No. 145.) Plaintiff 

filed his consolidated opposition, which totals more than 200 pages, on February 27, 2017. (ECF Nos. 

147, 148 and 149.) Defendants’ replies to the opposition, if any, are due on March 6, 2017. Local 

Rule 230(l).

MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

A. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01599-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE REPLY BRIEFS IN SUPPORT OF 

DEFENDANTS GONZALES’ AND BUSCH’S 

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 152)

Case 1:13-cv-01599-LJO-BAM Document 153 Filed 03/03/17 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

On March 2, 2017, Defendants filed an ex parte application for a two-week extension of time 

to file their replies to Plaintiff’s opposition to the motions for summary judgment. (ECF No. 152.) 

Defendants also filed a declaration of counsel in support of the ex parte application. Although Plaintiff 

has not had an opportunity to respond to Defendants’ request, the Court finds a response unnecessary. 

Local Rule 230(l). 

The declaration in support of Defendants’ application explains that Plaintiff’s opposition 

consists of over two hundred pages of legal argument and evidentiary materials, which will require not 

only reply briefing, but also extensive evidentiary objections. Counsel also explains that the attorney 

handling this matter and his associate have been preparing for trial in Wheeler v. Alison, Case No. 

1:12-cv-00861-DAD-GSA, which is scheduled to begin on March 7, 2017, and is expected to last the 

balance of the week. As a result, counsel does not believe there is a reasonable amount of time to 

prepare the necessary reply papers by the current deadline. (ECF No. 152.) 

Having considered the ex parte application, the Court finds good cause to modify the briefing 

schedule in this matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The Court further finds that Plaintiff will not be 

prejudiced by the brief extension requested here. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ ex parte application for an extension of time, (ECF No. 152), is 

GRANTED. Defendants’ replies in support of their motions for summary judgment are due no later 

than March 20, 2017. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2017 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01599-LJO-BAM Document 153 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 2