Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00358/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00358-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILL MOSES PALMER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SHAWN HATTON; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-358 SI (pr)

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES 

Plaintiff has filed an ex parte request for extension of time to file his opposition to the

pending motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. Plaintiff complains that he did not

receive defendant Earland’s motion until April 23, 2007 because it was not marked as legal mail

and therefore was processed as non-legal mail. Plaintiff is wrong insofar as he suggests that mail

from opposing counsel is confidential legal mail: there is nothing confidential about mail from

opposing counsel, unlike mail from one’s own attorney. Defendant Earland made no mistake

by not marking the mail as “confidential legal mail” as plaintiff requested. The court sets

generous briefing schedule in pro se prisoner cases to allow for the routine delays attendant to

documents being mailed to and from prison. When plaintiff received the motion – which,

incidentally, he had seen at least some version of because it was originally filed in August 2006

– he had about three weeks to prepare his opposition. The alleged mail delay does not warrant

an extension of time. However, plaintiff offered a more persuasive second reason for an

extension, i.e., he stated that he needed additional time because he had to respond to two

different dispositive motions – one from defendant Earland and another from the CDC

defendants – and the latter is a 35-page motion. That provides good cause for the extension of

Case 3:05-cv-00358-SI Document 93 Filed 05/23/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

time, even though the alleged mail delay does not. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time

therefore is GRANTED. (Docket # 91.) The court now sets the following new briefing schedule

for dispositive motions:

1. Plaintiff must file and serve on defense counsel his opposition to the dispositive

motions no later than June 22, 2007. 

2. Defendants must file and serve their reply briefs, if any, no later than July 13,

2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2007 ______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00358-SI Document 93 Filed 05/23/07 Page 2 of 2