Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01196/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01196-28/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT MITCHELL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-1196 JAM EFB P

vs.

T. FELKER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiffs are state prisoners proceeding with counsel in an action brought under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On March 26, 2013, plaintiffs filed a request for reconsideration of the Magistrate

Judge’s order filed March 20, 2013, granting defendants’ request for an extension of time to file

oppositions to plaintiffs’ motions for class certification and preliminary injunction. Dckt. No.

176. Plaintiffs argue that the order gives them insufficient time to file reply briefs before the

currently scheduled hearing date of June 12, 2013. 

Pursuant to E.D. Cal. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be

upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire file, the court

finds that it does not appear that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary

to law.

1

Case 2:08-cv-01196-TLN-EFB Document 181 Filed 04/22/13 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

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the

Magistrate Judge filed September 23, 2011 is affirmed. If plaintiffs would like the court to

modify the briefing schedule and/or hearing date in order to provide them additional time to

prepare their reply briefs, they may do so by filing an appropriate motion before the assigned

magistrate judge.

DATED: April 19, 2013

/

2

Case 2:08-cv-01196-TLN-EFB Document 181 Filed 04/22/13 Page 2 of 2