Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-04510/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-04510-4/pdf.json

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

---

1 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JACOB SILVERMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DORSEY LANE, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 18-04510 BLF (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION; DEEMING 

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION AS 

TIMELY FILED; DIRECTING 

DEFENDANTS TO FILE REPLY

(Docket. Nos. 81, 83, 85) 

Plaintiff, a California state pretrial detainee, filed a pro se civil rights complaint 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against prison officials at the Humboldt County Correctional 

Facility (“HCCF”). The Court found the complaint, (Docket No. 1), stated cognizable 

claims for excessive force and failure to protect prisoner’s safety, and ordered the matter 

served on Defendants. (Docket No. 13.) The Court ordered briefing on the excessive 

force claim against Defendant Lane and the failure to protect claim against Defendant 

Ayala. (Docket No. 54 at 16-17.) Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on 

November 26, 2019. (Docket No. 75.) On December 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

an extension of time to file an opposition which the Court denied for failure to show good 

cause on January 10, 2020. (Docket No. 80.) The Court deemed the matter submitted. 

Case 5:18-cv-04510-BLF Document 86 Filed 02/07/20 Page 1 of 2
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

(Id.) 

On January 7, 2020, before he received the Court’s order denying his first motion 

for an extension of time, Plaintiff filed a “motion to continue,” requesting additional time 

to file an opposition. (Docket No. 81.) The Court notes that Plaintiff again fails to explain 

why he needs additional time. (Id.) On the same day, Plaintiff filed the opposition. 

(Docket No. 82.) 

Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of his first 

motion for extension of time. (Docket No. 83.) Plaintiff states for the first time that he 

was “stagnated by his step-mother passing away.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that “Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure Rule 66(b)(b) permits Your Honor to exercise discretion in these 

regards... in favor of acts of god and circumstances of difficulty to timely proceed.” (Id.) 

Rule 66, however, has to do with Receivers and is not relevant to Plaintiff’s motion. Be 

that as it may, the Court finds good cause to excuse Plaintiff’s delay in filing timely 

responses and GRANTS the motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

opposition filed on January 13, 2020, (Docket No. 82), is deemed timely filed. 

Defendants’ motion to strike the opposition, (Docket No. 85), is therefore DENIED. 

Defendants’ initial reply and notice of non-opposition filed on January 6, 2020, 

(Docket No. 79), shall be STRICKEN. Defendants’ reply to Plaintiff’s opposition shall be 

filed no later than fourteen (14) days from the date this order is filed. The matter shall 

be deemed submitted on the date Defendants’ reply is due. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 81, 83, and 85. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

Order Granting Recon; Directing Def. to file Reply 

PRO-SE\BLF\CR.18\04510Silverman_grant.recon&reply.due 

Case 5:18-cv-04510-BLF Document 86 Filed 02/07/20 Page 2 of 2