Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05453/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05453-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOHAMMED ABDALLA

Plaintiff,

v.

M.C. KRAMER, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 5453 REC SMS P 

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE (Doc. 82.) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. 84.)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF TIME TO

FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 Mohammed Abdalla (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On October 21, 2005, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why Default should not

be entered against Defendant Rexin. Defendant Rexin responded to the Order to Show Cause on

October 26, 2005. On October 24, 2005, Defendant Rexin also moved for an extension of time

to file a late Answer. According to the Declaration submitted by Counsel for Defendant Rexin,

Defendant Rexin did not inform the Office of the Attorney General that he had waived service

nor did he request representation. It was only after the Court issued the Order to Show Cause

that the Office of the Attorney General contacted Defendant Rexin and arranged for

representation. (Exh. B, Declaration of Mr. Lewis.) 

Defendant Rexin has also requested an extension of time to file a late Answer and to also

reopen discovery based on the above information. Plaintiff did not file an Opposition to this

Motion. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

Case 1:02-cv-05453-LJO -SMS Document 86 Filed 11/10/05 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

1The Court docket shows that Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file an Opposition on August 16,

2005, which was granted on September 28, 2005. However, no Opposition is on file with the Court. The Court

notes further that Defendants moved for more time to file a Reply to the Opposition, however, it appears that

although Defendants received an Opposition, no Opposition was filed with the Court. 

2

1. The Order to Show Cause issued on October 21, 2005, is DISCHARGED;

2. The Motion to file a late Answer is GRANTED. Defendant Rexin’s Answer is

due within twenty (20) days of the date of service of this Order. Upon the

submission of the Answer, the Court will issue a Discovery and Scheduling Order

setting forth deadlines for the filing of dispositive motions and discovery. 

3. The Court notes that Plaintiff did not file an Opposition to the Motion for

Summary Judgment filed on July 5, 2005.1 The Court will grant Plaintiff time to

file an Opposition or a Statement of Non-Opposition. Plaintiff’s Opposition or

Non-Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed on July 5, 2005, is

DUE WITHIN thirty (30) days of the date of service of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05453-LJO -SMS Document 86 Filed 11/10/05 Page 2 of 2