Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01605/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01605-4/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

KENNETH LEE STANSBERY,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. BENAK, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01605 LJO DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF 

COURT ORDER OR EXTENSION OF 

DEADLINE AND MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME

[ECF Nos. 37, 39]

ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

D[IS]POSITIVE AND CLARIFICATION 

MOTION, REQUEST TO AMEND 

PLAINTIFF’S D[IS]POSITIVE AND 

CLARIFICATION MOTION, AND 

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED DISPOSITIVE 

MOTION

[ECF Nos. 31, 34, 40]

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR SET DATE FOR 

OPPOSING MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

[ECF No. 45]

Plaintiff is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On August 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint in this case. On February 

27, 2013, the Court issued a Findings and Recommendation which recommended that the action 

proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant J. Benak for deliberate 

Case 1:11-cv-01605-LJO-DLB Document 48 Filed 09/10/14 Page 1 of 4
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

indifference to a medical need. The Court recommended that all other claims and defendants be 

dismissed from the action. On April 4, 2013, the District Judge adopted the Findings and 

Recommendation in full. Defendant Benak filed an answer to the complaint on May 3, 2013. 

On May 7, 2013, the Court issued a scheduling order. The deadline for dispositive 

motions was set for December 2, 2013. On November 26, 2013, Defendant filed a motion to 

extend the time for filing dispositive motions by sixty days. On December 3, 2013, the Court 

granted the motion and extended the deadline for filing dispositive motions to February 4, 2014. 

On December 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed a pleading entitled “Plaintiff’s Depositive [sic] and 

Clarification Motion.” Defendant filed an opposition to the motion on December 23, 2013. On 

January 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a sixty day extension of time to file an amended 

“Dispositive and Clarification Motion” as well as a request to amend his “Depositive [sic] and 

Clarification Motion.” The Court granted an extension of thirty days on February 4, 2014, and 

the deadline for the “Amended Dispositive Motion” was set for March 10, 2014. On February 6, 

2014, Defendant filed a request for clarification of the Court’s February 4, 2014, order, or in the 

alternative, a motion to extend the deadline for dispositive motion filings for all parties. On 

March 6, 2014, Defendant filed a further request for an extension of time of 7 days. On March 

10, 2014, Plaintiff filed an “Amended Dispositive Motion.” On March 13, 2014, Defendant filed 

a motion for summary judgment. Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s Amended 

Dispositive Motion on March 26, 2014. On April 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a 

set date for opposing the motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, a motion to extend 

time for filing an opposition. On July 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion for 

summary judgment. On July 3, 2014, Defendant filed a reply to the opposition.

DISCUSSION

I. Motions/Requests Concerning Deadline for Filing Dispositive Motions

In his request for clarification of the Court’s order of February 4, 2014, Defendant states 

the Court did not state whether the February 4, 2014, order extending time was addressed to all 

parties or just to Plaintiff. In the event the motion deadline was for Plaintiff only, Defendant 

requested an extension of time for filing a dispositive motion. Thereafter, Defendant requested 

Case 1:11-cv-01605-LJO-DLB Document 48 Filed 09/10/14 Page 2 of 4
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

3

an additional extension of 7 days. Good cause having been presented, the Court grants an 

extension of time for filing dispositive motions nunc pro tunc to March 13, 2014. The Court 

considers Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as timely filed.

II. Motions/Requests Concerning Plaintiff’s Dispositive Motion

It is unclear what Plaintiff seeks or what his purpose is in filing what he terms a 

“D[is]positive and Clarification Motion.” The Court has reviewed the initial motion and his 

“Amended Dispositive Motion.” The pleadings generally constitute further argument or a 

restatement of the facts as set forth in his complaint. Defendant is correct that the motion is not 

permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules.

To the extent the motion can be considered a motion for summary judgment under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 56, the motion is procedurally and substantively deficient. Plaintiff does not set forth 

a “Statement of Undisputed Facts” as required by Local Rule 260(a). Plaintiff does not argue or 

establish that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56. He fails to identify which facts are undisputed and cites no evidence in support of any 

purported undisputed fact. Further, he cites no case law which would support entitlement to 

summary judgment. As noted above, the motion is largely a restatement of his amended 

complaint. Therefore, the Court will disregard Plaintiff’s D[is]positive and Clarification Motion, 

Request to Amend D[is]positive Motion, and Amended Dispositive Motion.

III. Request for Set Date for Opposing Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on March 13, 2014. Plaintiff’s 

opposition was due on April 3, 2014. Local Rule 230(l). On April 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a 

pleading entitled “Plaintiff Requesting for Set Date for Opposing Motion for Summary 

Judgment.” Plaintiff states he received Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on March 

17, 2014. Plaintiff asks that the deadline for filing an opposition to the Motion for Summary 

Judgment be extended. The Court did not rule on the motion for extension at that time. On July 

2, 2014, Plaintiff filed his opposition. Although the motion is untimely, given that the Court did 

not rule on the motion until now, and for good cause having been presented by Plaintiff in his 

motion, the Court grants Plaintiff an extension of time to file his opposition nunc pro tunc to July 

Case 1:11-cv-01605-LJO-DLB Document 48 Filed 09/10/14 Page 3 of 4
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

4

2, 2014.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Defendant’s Request for Clarification of Court Order [ECF No. 37] and Motion 

for Extension of Time [ECF No. 39] are GRANTED, and the Court HEREBY GRANTS an 

extension of time for filing dispositive motions nunc pro tunc to March 13, 2014;

2) Plaintiff’s D[is]positive and Clarification Motion [ECF No. 31], Request to 

Amend Plaintiff’s D[is]positive and Clarification Motion [ECF No. 34], and Amended 

Dispositive Motion [ECF No. 40] are DISREGARDED; and

3) Plaintiff’s Request for a Set Date for Opposing Motion for Summary Judgment 

[ECF No. 45] is GRANTED, and the Court HEREBY GRANTS an extension of time for filing 

an opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment nunc pro tunc to July 2, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01605-LJO-DLB Document 48 Filed 09/10/14 Page 4 of 4