Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06106/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06106-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

 Identified as Rison in the complaint. 1

 Identified as Eller Wine in the complaint. 2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN BERNARD BROOKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAYMOND ANDREWS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-6106-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

TO DEFENDANTS ANDREWS, GEO,

CALABRISE, KROGER, JOHNSON, AND

RINSON’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docs. 93 and 97) 

ORDER PROVIDING DEFENDANTS

HARVEY, HARO, AND ERLEWINE WITH

FIVE DAYS IN WHICH TO RESPOND TO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY

DISMISSAL OF THE CLAIMS AGAINST

THEM

(Doc. 96)

Plaintiff Steven Bernard Brooks (“plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by

federal actors. This action is proceeding against defendants Andrews, Global Experts in Outsourcing

Corporation (GEO), Calabrise, Kroger, Johnson, Rinson, Harvey, Haro, and Erlewine. Defendants 1 2

Andrews, GEO, Calabrise, Kroger, Johnson, and Rinson are represented by Klein, DeNatale,

Case 1:03-cv-06106-LJO -SMS Document 102 Filed 09/15/05 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

Goldner, Cooper, Rosenlieb, & Kimball, LLP, and defendants Harvey, Haro, and Erlewine are

represented by the United States Attorney’s Office.

On June 2, 2005, defendants Harvey, Haro, and Erlewine filed a motion for summary

judgment. (Doc. 82.) On August 1, 2005, defendants Andrews, GEO, Calabrise, Kroger, Johnson,

and Rinson filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment. (Doc. 93.) 

On August 16, 2005, in response to defendants Harvey, Haro, and Erlewine’s motion for

summary judgment, plaintiff filed a motion for voluntary dismissal or in the alternative for an

extension of time to respond. (Doc. 96.) Defendants Harvey, Haro, and Erlewine have not

responded to the motion. 

On August 30, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion seeking an extension of time to file a response

to defendants Andrews, GEO, Calabrise, Kroger, Johnson, and Rinson’s motion. (Doc. 97.)

Defendants Andrews, GEO, Calabrise, Kroger, Johnson, and Rinson filed a notice of non-opposition

to plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file a response to their motion. (Doc. 98.) 

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a response to defendants Andrews, GEO,

Calabrise, Kroger, Johnson, and Rinson’s motion is granted. Plaintiff shall file an opposition or

statement of non-opposition within thirty days from the date of service of this order.

With respect to plaintiff’s response to defendants Harvey, Haro, and Erlewine’s motion, the

court is inclined to grant plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal of his claims against defendants

Harvey, Haro, and Erlewine, without prejudice. If defendants Harvey, Haro, and Erlewine wish to

be heard prior to the court’s ruling, they have five days from the date of service of this order to file

a response.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a response to defendants Andrews,

GEO, Calabrise, Kroger, Johnson, and Rinson’s motion, filed August 30, 2005, is

GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff’s response to defendants Andrews, GEO, Calabrise, Kroger, Johnson, and

Rinson’s motion shall be filed within thirty (30) days from the date ofservice of this

order; and

Case 1:03-cv-06106-LJO -SMS Document 102 Filed 09/15/05 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

3. If defendants Harvey, Haro, and Erlewine wish to file a response to plaintiff’s motion

for voluntary dismissal or in the alternative for an extension of time, filed August 16,

2005, they must file their response within five (5) days from the date of service of

this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06106-LJO -SMS Document 102 Filed 09/15/05 Page 3 of 3