Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01109/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01109-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE ALFRED TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

AYUB HAROUN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01109-KES-CDB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

SECOND REQUEST FOR AN 

EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN 

WHICH TO FILE AN OPPOSITION TO 

THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

(Doc. 48)

Plaintiff Joe Alfred Taylor is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. INTRODUCTION

The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on October 10, 2023. (Doc. 40.) 

On August 12, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to modify the Discovery and 

Scheduling Order, extending the dispositive motion filing deadline to October 3, 2024. (Doc. 44.)

On October 3, 2024, Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 45.) On 

October 21, 2024, this Court granted Plaintiff’s first request for an extension of time to file an 

opposition to Defendants’ motion. (Doc. 47.) Plaintiff was directed to file his opposition no later 

than November 15, 2024. (Id. at 2.) 

Case 1:21-cv-01109-KES-CDB Document 49 Filed 11/19/24 Page 1 of 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

On November 18, 2024,1 Plaintiff filed a second request for an extension of time. (Doc. 

48.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks a second extension of time, to and including December 16, 2024, within 

which to file an opposition to Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 48.) 

Plaintiff states since the last extension of time, his housing facility has been “on (2) verifiable 

lockdown/modified program status back to back due to increased violence.” (Id. at 3.) The first 

modified program involved an attempted murder of a correctional officer, resulting in a 14-day 

lockdown, and the second involved “a riot between (2) two documented Security Threat Groups 

(STGs) known as the 2-5ers and I-R’s,” resulting in a lockdown or modification lasting about 5 

days. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts the lockdowns and/or modifications have adversely affected his 

“access to meaningful Law Library time to research and respond” prior to the current deadline. 

(Id.) Plaintiff states that without those interruptions, “he would have been prepared to respond to 

opposing Counsel’s documents and pleading.” (Id.) He states he has a habeas corpus action and a 

civil rights action pending in the United States District Court for the Central District in California, 

a civil rights action pending in this Court, and a civil rights complaint pending in the Kings 

County Superior Court, yet “is able to manage his caseload with meaningful access to the Law 

Library.” (Id.) Plaintiff states absent the requested extension, he “will be prejudiced due to no 

fault of his own.” (Id.) He notes Defendants’ motion is “voluminous and under review for his 

response,” and although he “has not begun drafting his responsive pleadings,” he “fully intends 

to.” (Id. at 4.) 

Plaintiff’s request will be granted. However, the Court notes Plaintiff’s previous request, 

made October 18, 2024, also referenced an attempted murder of a correctional officer, providing a 

date of “on or about October 2, 2024” for that crime. In the instant request, Plaintiff does not 

reference a date for the purported attempt on a correctional officer’s life. The Court will presume 

Plaintiff’s current and undated reference to an attempted murder of a correctional officer is 

different from that previously stated—it appears any lockdown that followed an attempted crime 

1 Plaintiff’s request is signed and dated November 13, 2024.

Case 1:21-cv-01109-KES-CDB Document 49 Filed 11/19/24 Page 2 of 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

occurring on October 2, 2024, is not likely to result in a lockdown extending beyond 14 days, 

meaning that purported crime would not support the current extension request. Finally, Plaintiff is 

cautioned that further requests for an extension of the deadline for filing an opposition to 

Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment will be viewed with disfavor. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, and for good cause shown, the Court ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiff’s second request for an extension of time within which to oppose Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment (Doc. 48) is GRANTED; 

2. Plaintiff SHALL file an opposition no later than December 16, 2024; and

3. Any further requests for an extension of time will be viewed with disfavor.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01109-KES-CDB Document 49 Filed 11/19/24 Page 3 of 3