Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00649/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00649-8/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

ALFREDO GOMEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MIKE McDONALD et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-0649 KJM DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks relief 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On March 21, 2014, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 55) 

Thereafter, on April 2, 2014, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to modify the court’s discovery 

and scheduling order and granted him additional time to complete discovery and file a motion to 

compel. (Doc. No. 58) The court also relieved plaintiff of having to file an opposition to 

defendants’ motion for summary judgment until after the court had ruled on plaintiff’s motion to 

compel. (Id.) On May 2, 2014, plaintiff filed his motion to compel, and after the court granted 

several extensions of time, defendants filed an opposition to that motion. Plaintiff also filed a 

reply in support of his motion to compel. (Doc. Nos. 59-62 & 64-69) On January 29, 2015, the 

undersigned granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to compel and also ordered him 

to file an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 74) Plaintiff has 

Case 2:11-cv-00649-KJM-DAD Document 81 Filed 03/06/15 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

filed his opposition and a cross-motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 74)

On March 2, 2015, defendants filed a motion seeking a sixty-day extension of time to file 

a reply in support of their motion for summary judgment and an opposition to plaintiff’s crossmotion for summary judgment. Good cause appearing, the court will grant defendants’ request. 

In addition, however, due to considerations of judicial economy and the extended time required 

for briefing by the parties, the court at this time will deny defendants’ March 21, 2014 motion for 

summary judgment without prejudice to its renewal by defendants at the time they file their reply 

in support of their own motion for summary judgment and their opposition to plaintiff’s crossmotion for summary judgment. In order to renew their motion for summary judgment as that 

time, defendants need only file a notice of renewal of their motion for summary judgment. 

Defendants do not need to refile any of the documents filed with the March 21, 2014 motion for 

summary judgment. If defendants file a notice of renewal, the parties’ cross-motions for 

summary judgment will be deemed submitted for findings and recommendations after plaintiff 

files a reply brief in support of his cross-motion for summary judgment or upon expiration of the 

time to do so. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion for a sixty-day extension of time (Doc. No. 80) is granted;

2. Defendants shall file any reply in support of their motion for summary judgment and 

an opposition to plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on or before May 1, 2015; and

3. Defendants’ March 21, 2014 motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 55) is denied 

without prejudice to its renewal, as appropriate, by defendants with any reply and their opposition 

to plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment. 

Dated: March 5, 2015

DAD:9

gome0649.36reply

Case 2:11-cv-00649-KJM-DAD Document 81 Filed 03/06/15 Page 2 of 2