Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02631/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02631-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT ALAN GIBBS, No. 2:13-CV-2631-KJM-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

BOYD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action. Pending before

the court is plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 50).

In his motion, plaintiff seeks leave to join additional defendants to this action. He

also seeks a “continuance on all matters pending in the court to beyond November 20th, 2016, as

I am currently in the Shasta Co. Jail.” 

Plaintiff’s request to join additional defendants is construed as a motion for leave

to amend. So construed, the motion is denied because plaintiff has not submitted a proposed

amended complaint. 

/ / /

/ / /

1

Case 2:13-cv-02631-KJM-DMC Document 51 Filed 03/03/16 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

Plaintiff’s request for a continuance is denied. Plaintiff has not demonstrated why

he is unable to prosecute this litigation from the Shasta County Jail. Moreover, as to the motion

for summary judgment brought by defendants Edwards and Jackson, plaintiff has not explained

why he failed to initially respond to the motion, which was originally filed in August 2015. Nor

has plaintiff explained why he did not seek an extension of time as to that motion before now. 

As to the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Boyd and Little in December 2015,

plaintiff’s current motion is construed as a motion for an extension of time to respond to the

motion. Given plaintiff’s recent incarceration, and good cause appearing therefor, plaintiff will

be granted additional time to respond to the motion filed by defendants Boyd and Little. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. To the extent plaintiff seeks leave to amend, plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 50) is

denied;

2. To the extent plaintiff seeks a continuance of all deadlines until after

November 20, 2016, plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 50) is denied; 

3. To the extent plaintiff seeks an extension of time to respond to the motion

for summary judgment filed by defendants Boyd and Little, plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 50) is

granted; 

4. Plaintiff may file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment filed

by defendants Boyd and Little within 30 days of the date of this order; and

5. Defendants Boyd and Little may file a reply brief within 15 days after the

date of service of plaintiff’s opposition, if any is filed. 

DATED: March 2, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:13-cv-02631-KJM-DMC Document 51 Filed 03/03/16 Page 2 of 2