Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00415/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00415-17/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAUDELL EARL MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00415-LJO-SKO PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION

(Doc. 88)

Plaintiff Claudell Earl Martin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed

a “Notice of Motion to Dismiss Defendants[sic] Late Dispositive Motion.” (Doc. #88.) Plaintiff’s

motion appears to consist of objections to the Court’s orders granting Defendants extensions of time

to file their dispositive motion. Plaintiff complains that the April 29, 2010 motion granting

Defendants an extension of time incorrectlystated that the extension was Defendants’ first extension

of time when it was actually Defendants’ second extension of time. The Court granted Defendants

another extension on June 14, 2010. (Doc. #87.) Plaintiff also sets forth various arguments as to why

the Court miscalculated the amount of time Defendants should have to file their motion.

The June 14, 2010, court order explicitly set June 28, 2010, as the deadline for Defendants

to file their dispositive motion. Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on June 28,

2010. Defendants’ motion is therefore timely. Plaintiff’s motion appears to request reconsideration

of the Court’s June 14, 2010 order granting Defendants additional time to file a dispositive motion

or reconsideration of the previous court orders granting Defendants additional time. The Court finds

1

Case 1:08-cv-00415-LJO -SMS Document 110 Filed 01/05/11 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

that Plaintiff has failed to set forth any persuasive reasons why reconsideration is appropriate. See

Local Rule 230(j).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s June 15, 2010 motion is DENIED. 

Defendants’ June 28, 2010 motion for summary judgment is deemed timely.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2011 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-00415-LJO -SMS Document 110 Filed 01/05/11 Page 2 of 2