Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01120/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01120-11/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RYAN BIGOSKI ODOM,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. TAYLOR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01120-KES-CDB (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR 60-DAY EXTENSION OF 

TIME WITHIN WHICH TO OPPOSE 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

(Doc. 48) 

ORDER HOLDING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS IN ABEYANCE

Plaintiff Ryan Bigoski Odom is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants Taylor, Khoo, Attinello, 

Ezenwugo, Mitchell and Singh. 

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 28, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment concerning the 

merits of Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. 42.) The motion included a Rand1 warning (Doc. 42-3), 

addressing the requirements concerning an opposition to a motion for summary judgment.

On October 3, 2024, the Court issued its Order to Show Cause (OSC) Why Sanctions 

Should Not Be Imposed for Plaintiff’s Failure to File an Opposition or Statement of Non1 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Case 1:20-cv-01120-KES-CDB Document 49 Filed 12/16/24 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

2

Opposition to the summary judgment motion. (Doc. 43.) Plaintiff was directed to show cause in 

writing within 14 days why sanctions should not be imposed for her failure to respond to 

Defendants’ summary judgment motion, or, alternatively, to file an opposition or statement of 

non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 2-3.) 

On October 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Decleration,” originally docketed 

as an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 44.) On October 24, 2024, 

Defendants filed the Declaration of Eric Miersma in Response to Plaintiff’s Declaration re 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 45.) 

On October 28, 2024, the Court issued its Order Discharging Order to Show Cause; Order 

Denying Request to Reopen Discovery; and Order Granting Extension of Time Within Which to 

File Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 46.) Relevant here, Plaintiff was 

directed to “file any opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment within 30 days of 

the date of service of this order.” (Id. at 6, emphasis in original.) 

When more than 30 days passed without an opposition being filed, on December 4, 2024, 

the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations to Grant Defendants’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment. (Doc. 47.) Objections were to be filed within 14 days of the date of the 

findings. (Id. at 22.) 

On December 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for 60 (Sixty) Day Extension of Time to 

Respond to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment.” (Doc. 48.) 

II. DISCUSSION

In her single-page motion, Plaintiff states she requires a 60-day extension of time “due to 

several lockdowns, alarms, and just not being able to go to the law library at all to gather 

information needed to completely and properly respond” to Defendants’ pending motion. (Doc. 

48.) Plaintiff’s motion is dated and signed December 3, 2024. (Id.) It is not accompanied by a 

Proof of Service.2

2 This Court’s Local Rules require any filing submitted to be accompanied by a Proof of Service. See Local Rule 

135(c); see also Doc. 3 at 4 (“...for purposes of the ‘Mailbox Rule,’ ... on all documents filed with the Court, the pro 

se plaintiff must attach a Proof of Service, indicating the date on which the filing was turned over to prison 

authorities. A document submitted without proof of service may be stricken/returned or if filed after the deadline, 

deemed not timely filed. A sample Proof of Service form is attached to this Order”). 

Case 1:20-cv-01120-KES-CDB Document 49 Filed 12/16/24 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

3

As noted above, on October 28, 2024, Plaintiff was directed to “file any opposition to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment within 30 days of the date of service of this order.” 

(Doc. 46 at 6, emphasis in original.) She did not do so. 

Plaintiff’s opposition filing deadline was November 27, 2024; 3her instant motion for an 

extension of time is signed and dated December 3, 2024, making her motion untimely by six 

days. Plaintiff fails to explain her tardy request and the reasons offered in support of the motion 

do not excuse the untimeliness of her request. Nevertheless, the Court will hold the Findings and 

Recommendations in abeyance and grant Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time. Plaintiff is 

cautioned that no further extensions of time will be entertained absent an extraordinary showing 

of good cause. Further, the Court will not entertain any further untimely requests.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued December 4, 2024 (Doc. 47) are HELD 

IN ABEYANCE until further order of the Court;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a 60-day extension of time (Doc. 48) is GRANTED; and

3. Plaintiff SHALL file any opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment no 

later than February 14, 2025.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3 10/28/24 +30 days = 11/27/24. 

Case 1:20-cv-01120-KES-CDB Document 49 Filed 12/16/24 Page 3 of 3