Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-05667/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-05667-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT A. MOSBY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES HAMLET, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 02-5667 SBA (PR)

ORDER (1) LIFTING STAY,

(2) DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT

TO REOPEN FILE, (3) GRANTING

DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR AN

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A

DISPOSITIVE MOTION AND (4) SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

(Docket no. 39)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at the California Training Facility (CTF) in Soledad,

California, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court issued an Order of

Service on March 8, 2004, and Defendants filed an Answer on June 21, 2004. On December 22,

2004, the Court entered a stay and directed the Clerk of the Court to administratively close this

case pending the Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1. On July 5, 2005, Defendants

notified the Court that the Supreme Court decided Cutter v. Wilkinson, 125 S. Ct. 2113 (2005) and

held that section 3 of RLUIPA did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 

Defendants request to lift the stay in this case. Defendants also request an extension of time, up to

and including September 9, 2005, in which to file a dispositive motion. 

Having read and considered Defendants' ex parte requests and the accompanying

declaration of counsel, and good cause appearing, 

The Court hereby GRANTS Defendants' request to lift the stay entered on December 22,

2004 (docket no. 39). The Clerk of the Court is directed to REOPEN the case file.

The Court GRANTS Defendant's request for an extension of time to file a dispositive

motion (docket no. 39). The time in which Defendants may file their dispositive motion will be

extended to no later than September 9, 2005. Plaintiff shall file his response no later than fortyfive (45) days after receipt of Defendants' dispositive motion. 

Case 4:02-cv-05667-SBA Document 41 Filed 07/14/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be granted. 

However, the party making a motion for an extension of time is not relieved from his or her duty to

comply with the deadlines set by the Court merely by having made a motion for an extension of

time. The party making the motion must still meet the deadlines set by the Court until an order

addressing the motion for an extension of time is issued. Any motion for an extension of time must

be filed no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the deadline sought to be extended.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 7/14/05

__________________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cv-05667-SBA Document 41 Filed 07/14/05 Page 2 of 2