Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01125/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01125-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

Stipulation and Order for Extension of Time – Case No. 2:11-cv-1125-MCE-KJN-PC 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

KING HALL CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC

CARTER C. WHITE, State Bar No. 164149

U.C. Davis School of Law

One Shields Avenue, Bldg. TB-30

Davis, CA 95616-5440

Telephone: (530) 752-5440

Fax: (530) 752-5788

ccwhite@ucdavis.edu

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Pursuant to Local Rule 143 the parties stipulate and ask the Court to Order that the 

deadline for Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Pomazal’s motion for summary judgment be 

extended until August 1, 2014. There is good cause for this extension of time as explained 

below.

Defendant Pomozal filed and served his motion for summary judgment on June 12, 2014. 

(ECF No. 67). Defendant did not set the motion for hearing, having been instructed by the 

Court’s staff to file motions in this case pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). Under that rule, the 

deadline for Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion is July 3, 2014.

The parties initially agreed that Plaintiff could take the deposition of Defendant Pomazal 

in March 2014. See ECF No. 62-1, at 3. After the Plaintiff moved for leave to amend the 

complaint, the parties agreed that the depositions of Defendant Pomazal and Nurse Ladista 

BRANDON ALEXANDER FERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEP’T OF CORR., et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 2:11-cv-1125-MCE-KJN-P

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME

Case 2:11-cv-01125-MCE-KJN Document 69 Filed 07/09/14 Page 1 of 3
Stipulation and Order for Extension of Time – Case No. 2:11-cv-1125-MCE-KJN-PC 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

would be continued until the pleadings issues were resolved. Id., at 4. The Court issued findings 

and recommendations that the Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend be denied, and Plaintiff has 

objected to those findings and recommendations. ECF Nos. 65, 66. The district court has not yet 

ruled on the Plaintiff’s objections.

Defendant filed his motion for summary judgment to comply with the deadline for the 

filing of dispositive motions in the current scheduling order. The parties arranged for Plaintiff to 

take the depositions of Defendant Pomazal and Nurse Ladista, but due primarily to the vacation 

schedule of one of those witnesses, the depositions did not take place until July 1, 2014. The 

court reporter has indicated that the transcripts of these depositions will be available by July 11, 

2014. The parties are asking that Plaintiff’s deadline be extended until 21 days after the 

deposition transcripts are available.

For these reasons, the parties ask the Court to extend the Plaintiff’s deadline to oppose 

Defendant Pomazal’s motion for summary judgment until August 1, 2014.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: July 2, 2014 /S/ Carter C. White

____________________

Carter C. White

Attorney for Plaintiff, Brandon A. Fernandez

Dated: July 2, 2014 R. Lawrence Bragg

____________________

R. Lawrence Bragg

Deputy Attorney General

Attorney for Defendants Cate, Pomazal, and Barnes

Case 2:11-cv-01125-MCE-KJN Document 69 Filed 07/09/14 Page 2 of 3
Stipulation and Order for Extension of Time – Case No. 2:11-cv-1125-MCE-KJN-PC 3

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

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the July 2, 2014 stipulation (ECF No. 68) is approved; 

Plaintiff’s deadline to oppose Defendant Pomazal’s motion for summary judgment is extended 

until August 1, 2014.

Dated: July 9, 2014

/fern1125.stip

Case 2:11-cv-01125-MCE-KJN Document 69 Filed 07/09/14 Page 3 of 3