Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01229/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01229-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH JEROME PACKNETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

FERNAND ALVAREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01229-YGR (PR)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS A 

SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION; 

RESPONDING TO REQUEST FOR 

CLARIFICATION ON STATUS OF 

DEFENDANTS DAVIS AND HAY; AND 

GRANTING MOTION FOR JOINDER

Before the Court are Defendants’ motions for another extension of time to file their 

dispositive motion. Dkts. 34, 40. Also before the Court is Defendants’ “Request for Clarification 

and Status of Davis and Hay; Notice of Joinder in Motion for Extension of Time to File a 

Dispositive Motion,” in which Defendants’ attorney points out that served Defendants M. L. Davis 

and S. Hay were inadvertently terminated from this action. Dkt. 44 at 1-2. Defendants request for 

the Court to clarify whether or not these Defendants have been terminated, and, if not, whether 

they may join in the motion for an extension of time to file a dispositive motion. Id. at 2.

After a review of the docket, the Court finds that Defendants Davis and Hay were 

incorrectly terminated, and it has instructed the Clerk of the Court to delete the notification of their 

termination on the docket. As mentioned above, Defendants Davis and Hay filed a motion to join 

the aforementioned Defendants’ motion for extension of time. Dkt. 44. Defendants Davis’s and 

Hay’s motion is GRANTED, and the joinder is accepted. 

Also, for good cause appearing, Defendants’ request for an extension of time to file a 

dispositive motion is GRANTED. Defendants may file a dispositive motion on or before 

September 13, 2016. 

Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed not more than twenty-eight 

(28) days after the date on which Defendants’ motion is filed. 

Case 4:15-cv-01229-YGR Document 45 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after the date Plaintiff’s 

opposition is filed. 

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 34, 40 and 44.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-01229-YGR Document 45 Filed 07/29/16 Page 2 of 2