Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05295/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05295-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BALTAZAR GODOY-AGUIRRE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CHARLES GILKEY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

______________________________)

1:03-CV-05295-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER EXTENDING DISPOSITIVE MOTION

DEADLINE

Old Dispositive Motion Deadline - 05-28-2005

New Dispositive Motion Deadline - Refer to Order below

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 19, 2005, defendants filed a request for an extension of

the deadline for filing a dispositive motion, as established by the joint stipulation of February 28, 2005. 

Defendants request an extension until thirty days after defendant Pitzer files an answer. 

Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the request on June 1, 2005.

The Court has examined Plaintiff’s objections and concludes that Defendants have

supported their request with good cause. Former Warden Pitzer was added as defendant by a recent

amended complaint and has not yet made an appearance. In addition, as noted above and in the Order

Case 1:03-cv-05295-OWW -LJO Document 48 Filed 06/03/05 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

2

allowing Plaintiff to amend, the claims against defendant Pitzer are nearly, if not, identical to that against

the remaining defendant(s). Thus, to require Defendants to keep to an original deadline and file two

separate dispositive motions and/or conduct duplicative pretrial preparations neither serves the interests

of justice or the efficiency of this Court’s management of its cases. Accordingly, the Court finds good

cause to grant Defendant’s request. In the event the service on Defendant Pitzer is returned unexecuted,

the Court will re-set the dispositive motion deadline. 

The instant extension is limited to the dispositive motion deadline due to defendants’

understanding that the claims against defendant Pitzer are nearly identical to the claims against Warden

Gilkey. Thus, no further discovery shall be required or granted. 

Good cause having been presented to the court, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING

THEREFOR, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the deadline for serving and filing pre-trial dispositive

motions, formerly May 28, 2005, shall be extended for all parties in this action until thirty days after

defendant Pitzer has filed his answer to the complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b6edp0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05295-OWW -LJO Document 48 Filed 06/03/05 Page 2 of 2