Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00414/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00414-26/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 

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND CONTINUANCE OF DATE TO HEAR MOTION 

MONCRIEF v. CDCR, EASTERN DISTRICT COURT, CASE NO. 12-0414 

Kenneth N. Frucht (SBN 178881) 

Frederick J. Geonetta (SBN 114824) 

GEONETTA & FRUCHT, LLP 

100 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Tel: (415) 433-4589 

Fax: (415) 392-7973 

Attorneys for Plaintiff John Philip Moncrief 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOHN PHILIP MONCRIEF, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

RANDY GROUNDS, TROY GORHAM, 

and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

)

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO.: 2:12-cv-00414 MCE AC P

STIPULATED REQUEST AND 

[PROPOSED ORDER] FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND FOR 

HEARING OF MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS 

(L. Rule 144; FRCP 6) 

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is currently due on July 

22, 2016. The parties hereby request and stipulate to a third and final extension of ten days for 

Plaintiff to file his opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion, and a concomitant 

continuance of the date for the Court to hear the motion. This request is made because of the 

difficult and time consuming nature of communications between Plaintiff and his counsel. 

Preparing the papers to oppose defendants motion involves substantial communication between 

Plaintiff and counsel in order to prepare Plaintiff’s declaration and to fact check the papers. 

The only means of communication between Plaintiff and counsel are mail and telephone 

conversations. Prison procedures and rules limit these telephone conversations to 15 minutes per 

call, making the process of communication slow and very tedious. Moreover, Plaintiff wishes to 

Case 2:12-cv-00414-MCE-AC Document 89 Filed 07/21/16 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 

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND CONTINUANCE OF DATE TO HEAR MOTION 

MONCRIEF v. CDCR, EASTERN DISTRICT COURT, CASE NO. 12-0414 

see the final opposition papers before they are filed, as is his right, and naturally wants to also 

see and sign his declaration, and this requires an airplane flight to San Diego where he is 

presently incarcerated. Plaintiff’s counsel intends to travel to San Diego to meet with Plaintiff 

on July 25, 2016. Following the meeting counsel intends to return to the Bay Area and finalize 

and file the opposition papers by August 1, 2016. 

STIPULATION 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 144, and FRCP 6, Plaintiff John Moncrief, by and through his 

attorney of record, Kenneth Frucht of the Geonetta & Frucht, LLP law firm, and Defendants 

Grounds, Frias and Gorham, by and through their attorney of record Kelli M. Hammond, hereby 

stipulate and request that Plaintiff have until August 1, 2016 to file Plaintiff’s opposition to the 

summary judgment motion, and that the hearing on the motion be set for August 31, 2016. 

SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: July 18, 2016 GEONETTA & FRUCHT, LLP 

 By: /s/ Kenneth Frucht 

 KENNETH FRUCHT 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 

Dated: July 18, 2016 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA 

 By: /s/ Kelli M. Hammond 

 KELLI M. HAMMOND 

 Deputy Attorney General 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: July 20, 2016 

Case 2:12-cv-00414-MCE-AC Document 89 Filed 07/21/16 Page 2 of 2