Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01356/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01356-7/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHANELO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01356-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS NUNC 

PRO TUNC

(ECF No. 49)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE REPLY RE: MOTION TO AMEND THE 

COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 52)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Lawrence Christopher Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action 

currently proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint for claims of excessive force against 

Defendants Sotelo, Chanelo, Wattree, Hunt, Castro, Gonzalez, Ramirez, and Rodriguez, related to 

events of March 13, 2013.

On December 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint and a motion for 

joinder of claims, together with a lodged proposed amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 45, 46, 47.) 

On January 2, 2020, Defendants filed a request for a fourteen-day extension of time to oppose 

Plaintiff’s motions. (ECF No. 49.) On January 15, 2020, before the Court had ruled on the 

Case 1:16-cv-01356-DAD-BAM Document 54 Filed 01/31/20 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

request for an extension of time, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiff’s motions. (ECF 

No. 50.)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a thirty-day extension of time to file a 

reply to Defendant’s opposition, filed January 27, 2020. (ECF No. 52.) On January 29, 2020, 

Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time. (ECF No. 

53.)

In light of Plaintiff’s apparent non-opposition to Defendants’ original request for 

extension of time, and Defendants’ non-opposition to Plaintiff’s request, the Court finds good 

cause to modify the briefing schedule in this matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendants’ request for extension of time to oppose Plaintiff’s motions, (ECF No. 49), 

is GRANTED, nunc pro tunc;

2. Defendant’s opposition, filed January 15, 2020, is deemed timely filed;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a reply in support of his pending 

motion for joinder of claims and motion to amend the complaint, (ECF No. 52), is 

GRANTED; and

4. Plaintiff shall file his reply within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this 

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01356-DAD-BAM Document 54 Filed 01/31/20 Page 2 of 2