Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00504/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00504-8/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAPHAEL GRAHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

WRIGHT,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00504-KES-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR 

PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION TO 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 43)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Raphael Graham (“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 Wright (“Defendant”) for violation of the Fourth Amendment for conducting the 

second strip search with an activated body camera, exposing Plaintiff’s genitals on camera, and 

for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.

On April 15, 2024, Defendant filed a notice of request to seal documents pursuant to 

Local Rule 141, together with a redacted motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 41, 42.) The 

request to seal related to a copy of the body-worn camera footage at issue in this action. 

Defendant indicated that the video was served on Plaintiff in the form of a compact disc (“CD”), 

together with the rest of the motion papers. (ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff’s oppositions or statements 

of non-opposition in response to the two motions were due on or before May 9, 2024.

Currently before the Court is Defendant’s May 21, 2024 request that Plaintiff’s deadline 

to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment be extended. (ECF No. 43.) Defendant 

states that, unbeknownst to Defendant, Plaintiff’s current institution had updated their computers 

and the new equipment did not include CD drives. Despite attempting to serve the video in 

different formats, the only viable way of presenting the video evidence to Plaintiff was to play it 

Case 1:22-cv-00504-KES-BAM Document 44 Filed 05/28/24 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

for him during a videoconference meeting. After experiencing technical difficulties during a May 

16, 2024 video meeting, the meeting was rescheduled for May 23, 2024. In light of the 

technology-caused delay, Defendant requests that the Court extend Plaintiff’s deadline to oppose 

the summary judgment motion for 28 days, or until June 17, 2024. (Id.)

Plaintiff has not had the opportunity to file a response, but the Court finds a response 

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

Upon review of the request, the Court finds good cause to grant the requested extension of 

time. The Court further finds it appropriate to extend the deadline for Plaintiff to file a response 

to the request to seal, that an extension of thirty days is appropriate under the circumstances, and 

that no party will be prejudiced by the brief extension granted here.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion for an extension of time for Plaintiff to file an opposition to the 

motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 43), is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 42), is due 

within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order;

3. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s request to seal documents, (ECF No. 41), is due 

within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order;

4. Defendant’s reply brief(s) to the respective motions, if any, shall be filed within fourteen 

(14) days from the date of filing of Plaintiff’s oppositions; and

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in 

compliance with this order, this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure 

to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00504-KES-BAM Document 44 Filed 05/28/24 Page 2 of 2