Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01639/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01639-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TERRY L WEISS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF SANTA ROSA POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, ET AL., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-01639-YGR 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR AN EXTENSION TO FILE RESPONSE TO 

COUNTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 81 

Plaintiff Terry Weiss, proceeding pro se, brings this action against the Santa Rosa Police 

Department, individuals associated with the police department individually and in their official 

capacity, and certain Sonoma County entities and individuals herein referred to as the “County 

Defendants.”1 Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint on September 19, 2016. (Dkt. No. 76.) 

On September 30, 2016, the County Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims against them. 

(Dkt. No. 77.) Plaintiff’s response was due on October 14, 2016. On October 21, 2016, County 

Defendants filed a Notice of No Opposition (Dkt. No. 80), and on October 24, 2016, plaintiff filed 

a Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 81), which 

County Defendants oppose (Dkt. No. 82). 

In the interest of justice, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s request for an extension to file a 

response. Plaintiff’s response must be filed no later than November 2, 2016, and County 

Defendants shall file their reply seven days thereafter. The Court notes, however, that plaintiff has 

missed several deadlines already, and the Court has previously had to issue an Order to Show 

 1

 The County Defendants specifically refer to the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office 

(erroneously sued as “Sonoma County Sheriff’s Depart”), the County of Sonoma (erroneously 

sued as “Main Adult Detention Facility”), County Sheriff Steve Freitas, and County Supervisor 

Efren Carrillo. 
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 Californi

a

Cause because of plaintiff’s failure to meet such deadlines. (See Dkt. No. 48.) Additionally, on 

June 24, 2016, the Court granted plaintiff’s request for permission to file documents 

electronically, which should have better facilitated her ability to meet her deadlines. (Dkt. No. 

69.) Thus, the Court will not grant any further requests for extensions from plaintiff, absent a 

compelling reason for such request. 

The Court also VACATES the hearing on County Defendants’ motion to dismiss, currently 

set for November 15, 2016. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 81. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 27, 2016 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE