Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05439/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05439-9/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

1As a preliminary matter, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations concerning Plaintiff’s Motion

for Summary Judgment on November 7, 2005.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRIS EDDIE GREENE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANCHEZ, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5439 AWI LJO P 

ORDER CONSTRUING MOTION TO

DISMISS TO DENY REQUEST FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME AS “OPPOSITION TO

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND

REQUEST THAT MOTION TO DISMISS BE

DENIED” (Doc. 33.) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DENY

MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 33.) 

 Chris Eddie Greene (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On October 28, 2005, Defendants moved for an extension of time to file a responsive

pleading. The Court granted Defendants request on November 2, 2005. On November 7, 2005,

Plaintiff filed a pleading which he titles “Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s First Request for An

Extension of Time and Ask the Court to Proceed on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”1

In the body of this pleading, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are deliberately delaying the case

because they did not respond until he filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff also states

that the extension of time should not have been granted because Defendants did not state that

they did not receive copies of the Complaint. 

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff’s pleading is not a Motion to Dismiss but an Opposition

or Objection to the request for an extension of time made by Defendants. As such, the Court will

Case 1:04-cv-05439-AWI-LJO Document 34 Filed 11/09/05 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

CONSTRUE the Motion as an Opposition to the request for an extension of time. 

With regard to Plaintiff’s contentions that Defendant’s request was not sincere but an

effort to delay the case, the Court disagrees. The Court grants extensions of time after careful

consideration of the circumstances that warrant the request. Here, counsel for Defendant

submitted a declaration under penalty of perjury which states that he was only recently assigned

to the case and had not had sufficient time or the necessary documents to formulate a responsive

pleading. The Court found Counsel’s justification warranted more time. Contrary to Plaintiff’s

contention that no documents are needed to file a responsive pleading, Defendants state that

certain inmate appeals and other documents must be obtained before Counsel can determine the

appropriate type of pleading that needs to be filed. Only after these documents are obtained can

counsel determine if a Motion to Dismiss is warranted or if, as argued by Plaintiff, Plaintiff has

exhausted his administrative remedies and a formal Answer is warranted. Although Plaintiff

states that he has exhausted his administrative remedies, it is the prerogative of the Defendants to

examine the relevant documentation and make that determination for themselves. Surely,

Plaintiff would not want the Court to rely solely on the Defendant’s word that he/they did not

violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff can rest assured that the Court does not grant

requests for extensions of time lightly. However, in this case, the Court finds the extension

warranted. 

Plaintiff also requests that the Court deny the Motion to Dismiss for exhaustion by

Defendants. However, no such motion has been filed. In the event such a motion is filed by

Defendants, Plaintiff has the option of filing an Opposition to the Motion should he choose to. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion to Dismiss is CONSTRUED as an Opposition to the Motion for an

Extension of time;

2. The Request to Deny the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05439-AWI-LJO Document 34 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 2