Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01585/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01585-8/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

ESMELING L. BAHENA,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEMON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01585-BAM (PC)

ORDER VACATING ORDER DIRECTING 

DEFENDANT TO FILE RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME

(ECF No. 44)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT

(ECF No. 43)

Plaintiff Esmeling L. Bahena (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendant Mendoza for excessive force and 

deliberate indifference to medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. All parties have 

consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 40.) This case is currently set for a video 

settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on November 17, 2023 at 10:00 

a.m.

On October 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for a 90-day extension of time, which the 

Court construed as a request for additional time to file a response to Defendant’s answer and a 

request for additional time to prepare a settlement conference statement. (ECF Nos. 43, 44.) The 

Court denied the request for extension of time to file a response to Defendant’s answer, but 

Case 1:22-cv-01585-BAM Document 46 Filed 10/31/23 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

directed Defendant to file a response within seven days regarding the remaining allegations in 

Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 44.)

On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a settlement conference statement. (ECF No. 45.) 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the motion for extension of time is now moot. The Court 

further finds that a response from Defendant to Plaintiff’s motion is now unnecessary.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, (ECF No. 43), is DENIED as moot;

2. The October 25, 2023 order directing Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion for 

extension of time, (ECF No. 44), is VACATED and Defendant is relieved of the 

obligation to file a response to the motion; and

3. This action remains set for a video settlement conference on November 17, 2023 at 10:00 

a.m. before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01585-BAM Document 46 Filed 10/31/23 Page 2 of 2