Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-03069/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-03069-9/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES ROBERT GORTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-3069 LKK GGH P

vs.

TODD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On December 9, 2009, plaintiff was granted twenty-eight days from the date of the

order to file his opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motion. On December 14, 2009,

plaintiff filed a motion for a ten day extension of time to file his opposition. On December 15,

2009, plaintiff filed his opposition. Because plaintiff’s opposition was filed within twenty-eight

days of December 9, 2009, plaintiff’s December 14, 2009, motion for extension of time is denied

as unnecessary.

On January 14, 2010, plaintiff’s motion to compel was granted in part and

defendants were ordered to file supplemental responses to two discovery requests within fourteen

days. Plaintiff may file a supplemental motion based on the two supplemental responses within

twenty-eight days of the date of this order. 

Case 2:08-cv-03069-LKK-AC Document 69 Filed 01/21/10 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

2

On December 15, 2009, and December 18, 2009, plaintiff filed motions for the

appointment of a court appointed medical expert. At this time, appointment of a medical expert

is not warranted. Fed. R. Evid. 706. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions are denied.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's December 14, 2009, request for an extension of time (Docket No.

52) is denied as unnecessary;

2. Plaintiff may file a supplemental motion based on the supplemental responses

to his discovery requests within twenty-eight days of the date of this order;

3. Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of a medical expert (Docket Nos. 53 and

61) are denied. 

DATED: January 21, 2010

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:kly

gort3069.36sec

Case 2:08-cv-03069-LKK-AC Document 69 Filed 01/21/10 Page 2 of 2