Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01877/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01877-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT ANTHONY LYMAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DEPUTY LAMBERT, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 06-1877 MMC (PR) 

ORDER DENYING EXTENSION OF

TIME

(Docket No. 12)

On March 10, 2006, plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the abovetitled civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 11, 2006, defendants filed a

motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, on the ground that plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See

Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 810 (2003)

(providing nonexhaustion claim should be raised in unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion rather

than in motion for summary judgment). On September 7, 2006, plaintiff was provided notice

pursuant to Wyatt, see id. at 1120 n.14, and was granted an additional 90 days, to and

including December 6, 2006, in which to respond to defendants’ motion. 

On September 29, 2006, plaintiff filed a request for “an extension of time in which to

retain counsel in this matter.” He seeks to have the “current deadline” extended by 90 days. 

There is no deadline for plaintiff to retain counsel in this matter; he may do so whenever he

chooses. As a result, there is no need for an extension of time. If, however, plaintiff is

seeking a 90-day extension of the December deadline by which his opposition to defendants’

Case 3:06-cv-01877-MMC Document 13 Filed 10/11/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

motion is due, such request is denied as plaintiff has provided no reason justifying such

further delay. As of the December deadline, plaintiff will have had approximately nine

months since the filing of this action in which to retain counsel, and five months since the

filing of defendants’ motion in which to prepare a response. Defendants’ motion concerns

the preliminary, procedural matter of exhaustion, for which five months constitutes ample

time to prepare a response. Moreover, plaintiff has not identified any attorney he plans to

retain, nor has he explained how extending the deadline for his opposition an additional 90

days will enable him to retain counsel. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is hereby DENIED.

This order terminates Docket No. 12.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 11, 2006 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01877-MMC Document 13 Filed 10/11/06 Page 2 of 2