Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05894/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05894-3/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

MING CHING JIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-5894-REC-LJO-P

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE AN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 43)

Plaintiff Ming Ching Jin (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on August 15,

2005. On August 31, 2005, defendants Aguirre, Rodriguez, Quinn-Robicheaux, and Vargas filed

a request for an extension of time to file an opposition to the motion. Plaintiff filed an opposition

to defendants’ request on September 14, 2005.

The court finds defendants have demonstrated good cause for their request for an extension

of time. Plaintiff’s objection is noted but it is without merit. Defendants’ request was timely, Fed.

R. Civ. P. 6(b); Local Rule 6-144(d), and even if it had not been timely, the court has the discretion

to consider it. Further, an initial request for an extension of time by either side is, in general, not

considered out of the ordinary and is usually granted. The court does not view with favor an

objection from either side to an initial request for an extension of time, absent a clear showing of

prejudice. Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the extension of time, and given this court’s

tremendous caseload, granting defendants an extension of time to respond will not result in any

additional delay in resolving plaintiff’s pending motion.

Case 1:04-cv-05894-AWI-LJO Document 54 Filed 09/29/05 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

Accordingly, defendants’ request for an extension of time is GRANTED and defendants’

opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is due within thirty (30) days from the date

of service of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05894-AWI-LJO Document 54 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 2