Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01669/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01669-11/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

KYREE BREEDLOVE,

Plaintiff,

v.

FIGUEROA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01669-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

(ECF No. 41)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR SECOND EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 42)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Kyree Breedlove (“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 against 

Defendant Figueroa for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On April 30, 2021, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that 

(1) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to his Eighth Amendment claim; and 

(2) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant is barred by the favorable termination 

rule. (ECF No. 37.) Following an extension of time, Plaintiff’s opposition was due on or before 

July 12, 2021. (ECF No. 40.)

///

Case 1:18-cv-01669-JLT-BAM Document 43 Filed 08/16/21 Page 1 of 3
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

After Plaintiff failed to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment, on August 

2, 2021, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause within twenty-one days why this 

action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 41.)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion Showing Cause and Seeking Further 

Extension,” filed August 13, 2021. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff states that on June 3, 2021, 

Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s request for a settlement in this case, but never said if they 

accepted or denied Plaintiff’s offer. Also, due to a new surge in COVID-19 cases, the facility 

where Plaintiff is housed has been under a modified program, making movement restrictive and 

hard due to a shortage of staff. Plaintiff requests a new deadline and argues that Defendant 

waived time for an excess of 1 year with only COVID-19 as the cause. Plaintiff states that he is 

still waiting to hear back from Defendant on the matter of settlement. (Id.)

Defendant has not yet had an opportunity to file a response, but the Court finds a response 

is unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

Having considered the moving papers, the Court finds that the modified program at 

Plaintiff’s institution presents good cause to grant the requested extension. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). 

The Court finds that an extension of thirty days is appropriate under the circumstances, and

further finds that Defendant will not be prejudiced by the brief extension granted here.

However, Plaintiff is warned that waiting for a response from Defendant’s counsel 

regarding his settlement offer is not good cause for a further extension of this deadline. Even 

though he has offered to settle this case, Plaintiff is still obligated to file an opposition to 

Defendant’s summary judgment motion, unless the Court orders otherwise. In addition, it is 

Plaintiff’s responsibility to meet the deadlines in this action, or to request extensions of those 

deadlines if he is unable to meet them.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The August 2, 2021 order to show cause, (ECF No. 41), is DISCHARGED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, (ECF No. 42), is GRANTED;

3. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is due within thirty 

(30) days from the date of service of this order; and

Case 1:18-cv-01669-JLT-BAM Document 43 Filed 08/16/21 Page 2 of 3
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

3

4. Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition in compliance with this order will result in 

dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01669-JLT-BAM Document 43 Filed 08/16/21 Page 3 of 3