Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06066/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06066-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

CHARLES LOWELL KENTZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

EARLENE SMITH,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-06066-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 76)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

RE-SERVE DOCUMENTS 73 AND 74 ON

PLAINTIFF AT HIS NEW ADDRESS OF

RECORD 

(Doc. 77)

Plaintiff Charles Lowell Kentz (“plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.

388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. This action is

proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint against defendant Earlene Smith (“defendant”)

for discriminating against plaintiff on the basis of his sexual orientation, in violation of the Equal

Protection Clause. 

On July 31, 2006, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. On August 3, 2006, the

Court issued an order requiring defendant to show cause within twenty days why the motion should

not be stricken from the record, and directing plaintiff not to file any response to the motion until

directed to do so by the Court. On August 9, 2006, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address and

a motion seeking an extension of time to file a response to defendant’s motion.

Case 1:04-cv-06066-LJO -LJO Document 78 Filed 08/14/06 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

In light of the Court’s order of August 3, 2006, plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time

to file a response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment is HEREBY DENIED, and in light

of plaintiff’s recent address change, the Clerk’s Office is HEREBY DIRECTED to re-serve

documents 73 and 74 on plaintiff at his new address of record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06066-LJO -LJO Document 78 Filed 08/14/06 Page 2 of 2