Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00454/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00454-7/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UMAR SHAHID,

Plaintiff,

v.

I. ALDAZ et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0454 JAM KJN P (TEMP)

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with a civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 10, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 

No. 30) On June 17, 2015, then-Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd granted defendants an extension 

of time to file an opposition to plaintiff’s motion until after the court had ruled on their pending 

motion for summary judgment based on plaintiff’s purported failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies prior to filing suit. (Doc. No. 34) On November 12, 2015, the undersigned issued 

findings and recommendations, recommending granting in part and denying in part defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 37) On December 29, 2015, the assigned district judge 

adopted the findings and recommendations in full. (Doc. No. 40) In accordance with Judge 

Drozd’s prior order, on January 19, 2016, defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. 

(Doc. No. 41) On February 16, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to respond 

to defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 42) 

Case 2:14-cv-00454-JAM-KJN Document 43 Filed 02/25/16 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

Good cause appearing, the court grants plaintiff’s request for additional time to respond to 

defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. In addition, however, due to considerations of 

judicial economy and the extended time period required for briefing by the parties, the court 

denies plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment filed on June 10, 2015, without prejudice to its 

renewal, as appropriate, by plaintiff with his opposition to defendants’ cross-motion for summary 

judgment. In order to renew the motion, plaintiff shall file only a notice of renewal of the motion 

for summary judgment. He shall not refile any of the documents he filed with the June 10, 2015 

motion for summary judgment. If plaintiff files such a notice of renewal, the parties’ crossmotions for summary judgment will be submitted for findings and recommendations following 

the filing of defendants’ reply, if any, in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s February 16, 2016 motion for extension of time (Doc. No. 42) is granted;

2. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition 

to defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment; and

3. Plaintiff’s June 10, 2015 motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 30) is denied

without prejudice to its renewal with the filing of plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ crossmotion for summary judgment. Plaintiff shall renew his motion for summary judgment merely by 

filing with his opposition a notice of motion for summary judgment. Thereafter plaintiff’s 

renewed motion for summary judgment will be submitted for findings and recommendations on 

all the papers on file following the filing of defendants’ reply in support of their cross-motion for 

summary judgment.

Dated: February 24, 2016

shah0454.36opp

Case 2:14-cv-00454-JAM-KJN Document 43 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 2