Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01284/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01284-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EVERETT GALINDO GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01284-AWI-SKO PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SIXTY-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE OBJECTIONS AND VACATING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

FROM COURT’S CALENDAR PENDING

OBJECTION DEADLINE

(Docs. 29, 43, 44, and 57)

Plaintiff Everett Galindo Gonzalez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 23, 2009. Pursuant to the third

screening order filed on March 12, 2012, this action for damages is proceeding on Plaintiff’s third

amended complaint against Defendants Fisher, Giacomi, Norton, Watson, Dotson, Ruff, Roman,

Speer, Gardemal, Lunes, Rodriguez, and Espinosa (1) for revalidating Plaintiff in 2004 and then

again in 2006, and (2) rejecting him for inactive gang status and revalidating him in 2006/2007, all

without notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and the existence of some evidence with an

indicia of reliability, in violation of the Due Process Clause.

On February 20, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations

recommending that Defendants’ three motions to dismiss, filed on July 9, 2012, October 25, 2012,

and November 7, 2012, be granted in part and denied in part. On March 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a

motion seeking a sixty-day extension of time to file objections. Due to Plaintiff’s inability to

complete and file objections within the initial thirty-day period provided, the Court cannot yet rule

on the motions to dismiss. 

1

Case 1:09-cv-01284-DAD-SKO Document 58 Filed 03/20/13 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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a sixty-day extension of time to file objections is GRANTED;

and

2. In light of 28 U.S.C. § 476(a)(1), the Civil Justice Reform Act, Defendants’ motions

to dismiss are DEEMED VACATED from the Court’s calendar until (1) Plaintiff

files objections and Defendants’ response, if any, is timely filed, or (2) the thirty-day

objection period expires without receipt of objections. 

1

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 20, 2013 

9h0d30 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

The Court’s action is purely administrative and the parties need take no further action. Once the objection

1

period is closed, the Court will issue its ruling on the motions to dismiss.

2

Case 1:09-cv-01284-DAD-SKO Document 58 Filed 03/20/13 Page 2 of 2