Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05125/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05125-18/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

JOHN R. MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. SHAW, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-05125-OWW-SMS PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE HIS

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 101)

ORDER VACATING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

FROM COURT’S CALENDAR UNTIL IT IS

DEEMED SUBMITTED UNDER LOCAL

RULE 78-230(M)

(Doc. 94)

Plaintiff John R. Martinez (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 26, 2007, defendants

filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff was granted a thirty-day extension of time to file a

response on April 18, 2007, and again on June 12, 2007. After more than thirty days passed and

plaintiff did not file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion, the Court

issued an order requiring plaintiff to file a response within twenty days. On August 27, 2007,

plaintiff filed a motion seeking a third extension of time. Plaintiff’s motion shall be granted.

In light of 28 U.S.C. § 476(a)(1), the Civil Justice Reform Act, defendants’ motion for

summary judgment is deemed vacated from the Court’s calendar untilsuch time as plaintiff files his

opposition and the motion is deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m).

Case 1:03-cv-05125-OWW -SMS Document 102 Filed 08/29/07 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

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a thirty-day extension of time to file an opposition to

defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed August 27, 2007, is GRANTED;

and

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is deemed VACATED from the Court’s

calendar until plaintiff files his opposition and the motion is deemed submitted

pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05125-OWW -SMS Document 102 Filed 08/29/07 Page 2 of 2