Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01665/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01665-28/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

ROGER WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIM POOLE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01665-AWI-EPG (PC)

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF NO. 114)

Roger Walker (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to 

Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. (ECF No. 114). However, in the motion, Plaintiff 

appears to ask for time to obtain additional discovery that he needs to respond to the motion for 

summary judgment.

It is unclear what Plaintiff is requesting. To the extent Plaintiff is requesting an extension 

of time to respond to the motions for summary judgment, the Court finds good cause to grant an 

extension. However, to the extent Plaintiff is asking for additional discovery under 56(d),1

 

1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) states: “If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for 

specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer considering the 

motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other 

appropriate order.”

Case 1:16-cv-01665-AWI-EPG Document 115 Filed 01/17/20 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

Plaintiff has failed to make the required showing (Plaintiff did not file a declaration, and his 

motion simply states that he “needs time for discovery in order to respond”).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of service of this order to respond to 

Defendants’ motions for summary judgment.

2. If Plaintiff believes he needs to take additional discovery in order to appropriately 

respond to the motions, Plaintiff has fourteen days from the date of service of this 

order to file a motion and declaration in accordance with Rule 56(d). In the motion 

Plaintiff should explain what discovery he needs, why it is essential to opposing the

motions for summary judgment, and why he was unable to obtain the discovery 

earlier. If Plaintiff files such a motion, Defendants have fourteen days from the date 

the motion is docketed to file a response.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01665-AWI-EPG Document 115 Filed 01/17/20 Page 2 of 2