Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01569/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01569-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

FREDERICK MARC COOLEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1569 DFL JFM PS

vs.

SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPUTIES BRADFORD AND ROPER,

ORDER

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. By

findings and recommendations filed February 13, 2006, the court recommended this action be

dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his action. On March 8, 2006, plaintiff filed

objections. In his objections, plaintiff alleges his neighbor hand-delivered the court’s findings

and recommendations to plaintiff. Plaintiff contends he did not receive defendants’ motion to

dismiss or the court’s order granting plaintiff additional time to respond to the motion. Plaintiff

further alleges he would have filed an opposition to the motion had he received it. 

Good cause appearing, the court will vacate the February 13, 2006 findings and

recommendations. Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to file an opposition to defendants’

December 19, 2005 motion to dismiss. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that no further extensions

Case 2:05-cv-01569-DFL -JFM Document 18 Filed 03/17/06 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

of time will be granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The February 13, 2006 findings and recommendations are vacated.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the following

documents: defendants’ December 19, 2005 motion to dismiss (docket no. 7) and January 17,

2006 order (docket no. 11). 

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition

to defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to timely respond will result

in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: March 16, 2006.

001; cooley.vac

Case 2:05-cv-01569-DFL -JFM Document 18 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2