Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02216/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02216-25/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNEST LEE VADEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT L. MAYES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-2216 TLN CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil 

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Several matters are before the court.

Plaintiff has filed requests for an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’

motion for summary judgment. Good cause appearing, those requests will be granted and 

plaintiff’s January 31, 2022, opposition will be deemed timely. The court notes that plaintiff has 

also requested that the court delay consideration of the motion for summary judgment until after 

the court resolves two pending motions to compel further responses to plaintiff’s requests for 

production of documents and a motion for leave to amend. Plaintiff is advised that the court will 

resolve the motions to compel and the motion to amend before the motion for summary judgment 

and the court will consider granting plaintiff leave to amend his opposition to the motion for 

summary judgment when the court rules on the outstanding motions to compel and for leave to 

amend.

Case 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD Document 150 Filed 02/17/23 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

Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking leave to propound one interrogatory upon some 

undisclosed defendant. Plaintiff has conducted extensive discovery in this matter as any review 

to the court’s record reveals, and discovery is closed with the exception of plaintiff’s two pending 

motions to compel further production of documents. Because plaintiff does not show good cause 

for permitting more discovery, nor good cause for his delay in seeking a response to the 

interrogatory submitted, his motion will be denied. 

Plaintiff has filed a motion for an extension of time to file a declaration in support of his 

motion for summary judgment. Good cause appearing, that request will be granted. 

Defendants have filed a motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief concerning 

their motion for summary judgment. Good cause appearing, that request will be granted. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions for an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment (ECF No. 141, 142) are granted;

2. Plaintiff’s January 31, 2022, opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

is deemed timely;

3. Plaintiff’s motion to propound one interrogatory (ECF No. 143) is denied; 

4. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file a declaration in support of his motion 

for summary judgment (ECF No. 145) is granted;

5. Plaintiff’s February 8, 2023, declaration in support of his motion for summary 

judgment is deemed timely;

6. Defendants’ request for an extension of time to file reply brief concerning their motion 

for summary judgment (ECF No. 149) is granted;

7. Defendants’ reply brief is due April 14, 2023.

Dated: February 16, 2023

1/hh

vade2216.36

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD Document 150 Filed 02/17/23 Page 2 of 2