Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00924/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00924-4/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

CESAR ENCISO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. MOON, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-00924-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR A THIRTY-DAY 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN 

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO DISMISS

(Doc. 34)

Plaintiff Cesar Enciso, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 7, 2012. This action is proceeding against 

Defendants Moon, Alcantar,

1

Silva, Doe 1, and Doe 3 for violation of the Eighth Amendment of 

the United States Constitution and for negligence under California law. Plaintiff’s claims arise of 

the denial of adequate medical treatment at North Kern State Prison in Delano, California.

On February 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a thirty-day extension of time to file 

an opposition to Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss, once filed.2 Defendants filed their 

motion to dismiss on February 28, 2014. 

 

1

Identified in the complaint as Alcator.

2

Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), the parties have twenty-one days to file oppositions or statements of non-opposition to 

motions, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) provides three additional days for mailing. Regarding Plaintiff’s 

statement that the Court did not notify him of the timeframe within which to respond to Defendants’ motion to modify 

the scheduling order, Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting his case, including responding to motions. Pliler v. Ford, 

5452 U.S. 225, 231, 124 S.Ct. 2441, 2446 (2004). The Court does not issue orders directing responses as a matter of 

course. 

Case 1:12-cv-00924-LJO-SKO Document 36 Filed 03/03/14 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, Plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY GRANTED and he shall file his opposition 

within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00924-LJO-SKO Document 36 Filed 03/03/14 Page 2 of 2