Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02374/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02374-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEAN O’NEAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

AUGUST JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2374 DAD PS

ORDER

This matter came before the court on June 19, 2015, for the hearing of plaintiff’s motion 

to add a defendant. Plaintiff Sean O’Neal appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Sean Richmond 

appeared on behalf of the defendants.1 That same day, the court issued an order continuing the 

hearing of plaintiff’s motion to July 24, 2015. (Dkt. No. 28.)

On June 22, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the July 24, 2015 hearing of his 

motion be continued to August 21, 2015. (Dkt. No. 29.) Therein, plaintiff states that he requires 

additional time to “prepare and research case law,” due to “a medical condition that requires he 

take prescription pain killer and other medication that slows him down.” (Id. at 3.) Defendants 

have filed an opposition to plaintiff’s request in which defendants note that plaintiff has already 

had a significant amount of time to prepare his motion. (Dkt. No. 30.) 

 

1

 The parties currently before the court have previously consented to Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c)(1). (Dkt. No. 16.) 

Case 2:14-cv-02374-DB Document 31 Filed 07/13/15 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

27

28

2

Although the court is mindful of the arguments advanced in defendants’ opposition, the

court nonetheless finds good cause to grant plaintiff’s motion for a continuance. The court, 

however, will not grant plaintiff the length of continuance he has requested in his motion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s June 22, 2015 motion to continue (Dkt. No. 29) is granted.

2. The July 24, 2015 hearing of plaintiff’s motion to add a defendant is continued to 

Friday, August 7, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, 

Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27, before the undersigned. Any party may appear at 

the August 7, 2015 hearing telephonically if the party pre-arranges such appearance by contacting 

Pete Buzo, the courtroom deputy of the undersigned magistrate judge, at (916) 930-4128, no later 

than 48 hours before the hearing; a land line telephone number must be provided.

3. Plaintiff shall file a proposed sixth amended complaint and a supplement to his motion 

to add a defendant on or before July 20, 2015. Defendants shall file an opposition to plaintiff’s 

motion on or before July 27, 2015. Plaintiff shall file a reply on or before August 3, 2015. 

Dated: July 12, 2015

DAD:6

Ddad1\orders.consent\o’neal2374.eot.ord.docx

Case 2:14-cv-02374-DB Document 31 Filed 07/13/15 Page 2 of 2