Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01669/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01669-9/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

KYREE BREEDLOVE,

Plaintiff,

v.

FIGUEROA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01669-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 39)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Kyree Breedlove (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against 

Defendant Figueroa for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On April 30, 2021, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that 

(1) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to his Eighth Amendment claim; and 

(2) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Figueroa is barred by the favorable 

termination rule. (ECF No. 37.) Plaintiff’s opposition was therefore due on or before May 24, 

2021.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion seeking an extension of time or 

modification of the scheduling order, dated May 21, 2021 and filed June 7, 2021. (ECF No. 39.) 

Plaintiff states that due to a lockdown he has not been able to properly go to the law library to 

research the log information for or around September 13, 2018 to see if Plaintiff was there at the 

Case 1:18-cv-01669-JLT-BAM Document 40 Filed 06/08/21 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

law library to make copies of the 602 in question. Plaintiff also wrote to the Defendant and 

offered a settlement statement and is awaiting a response from defense counsel. (Id.) Defendant 

has not yet had an opportunity to file a response, but the Court finds a response is unnecessary. 

The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

Having considered the moving papers, the Court finds good cause to grant the requested 

extension. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). As Plaintiff has not requested a specific extension of time, the 

Court finds an extension of thirty days is appropriate. The Court further finds that Defendant will 

not be prejudiced by the brief extension granted here. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, (ECF No. 39), is HEREBY 

GRANTED. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is due within 

thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order. Defendants’ reply, if any, is due no more 

than seven (7) days following the docketing of Plaintiff’s opposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01669-JLT-BAM Document 40 Filed 06/08/21 Page 2 of 2