Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06046/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06046-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNIE SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

ERIC GOLDING, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-06046-HSG 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE 

WAIVER OF REPLY; GRANTING 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

DISPOSITIVE MOTION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 15, 16

Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison – Los Angeles County, filed this pro se civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that officials at Pelican Bay State Prison, 

where he was previously housed, violated his constitutional rights. Now pending before the Court 

are (1) plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to oppose defendant Golding’s waiver of reply

(Dkt. No. 16) and (2) defendant Golding’s request for an extension of time to file his dispositive 

motion (Dkt. No. 15). 

Plaintiff has requested a three-day extension of time to file a response to defendant 

Golding’s waiver of reply, docketed on January 29, 2020 at Dkt. No. 14. Dkt. No. 16. This 

request is DENIED as moot. No reply to a waiver of reply is required or allowed. Plaintiff states 

that he has realized that he needs to amend his first amended complaint (Dkt. No. 12)1to remove 

Jim Robertson from the face of the amended complaint and to remove his due process and equal 

protection claims, so that he may proceed solely with the claims found cognizable and solely 

against the defendants upon whom the Court has ordered service of summons. Dkt. No. 16 at 2. 

The effect of the Court’s January 21, 2020 screening order is that Jim Robertson has been 

1 The Court mistakenly referred to the first amended complaint (Dkt. No. 12) as a second amended 

complaint in the January 21, 2020 screening order. Dkt. No. 13.

Case 4:19-cv-06046-HSG Document 17 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

dismissed from this action, and that the due process and equal protection claims have been 

dismissed from this action. Plaintiff need not amend his first amended complaint to list only 

cognizable claims and the served defendants in order for the Court’s January 21, 2020 screening 

order to have effect. 

Good cause being shown, defendant Golding’s request for an extension of time to file his

dispositive motion is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 15. The Court resets the briefing schedule as follows. 

Defendants shall file their dispositive motion within ninety-one (91) days of the date of this order. 

Plaintiff’s opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion must be filed with the 

Court and served upon defendants no later than 28 days from the date the motion is filed. 

Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the date the opposition is filed. The 

motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. 

This order terminates Dkt. Nos. 15 and 16.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/20/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-06046-HSG Document 17 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 2