Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01789/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01789-12/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

MONRELL D. MURPHY,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PIERCE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-1789 TLN KJN P

ORDER

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

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 11, 2023, defendants filed an ex parte motion for 

extension of the pretrial motions deadline in light of their pending motion to revoke plaintiff’s in 

forma pauperis status. On December 13, 2022, the court granted defendants’ motion for 

extension. On December 13, 2022, the undersigned recommended that defendants’ motion to 

revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status be denied.

On December 21, 2023, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants’ motion for extension 

of time to file a summary judgment motion. Plaintiff states that this case has been on file since 

September 28, 2021, and objects that defendants are attempting to delay or frustrate this action 

by refusing to participate in the settlement program, and filing meritless motions, for example, a 

motion to dismiss that was denied, and a motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status.

////

Case 2:21-cv-01789-TLN-CSK Document 60 Filed 01/02/24 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

Plaintiff is advised that defendants were allowed to opt out of the settlement program by 

demonstrating good cause. (ECF No. 19.) In any event, the case was not delayed by defendants 

opting out of the settlement program. Further, defendants are permitted to defend themselves by 

filing motions available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Although defendants’ 

motion to dismiss was denied, the court did not find the motion to be legally frivolous. Finally, 

the court granted defendants only a brief extension of time until January 27, 2024, in which to file 

their motion for summary judgment. 

Therefore, the court declines to reconsider granting defendants the extension of time to 

file a motion for summary judgment. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s opposition (ECF No. 59), 

construed as a motion for reconsideration, is denied. 

Dated: January 2, 2024

/murp1789.rec

Case 2:21-cv-01789-TLN-CSK Document 60 Filed 01/02/24 Page 2 of 2