Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00069/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00069-9/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

PUNAOFO TSUGITO TILEI,

Plaintiff,

v.

McGUINNESS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-000069-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

SUBMIT DOCUMENTS FOR SERVICE

(Doc. 48) 

JULY 15, 2016 DEADLINE

Plaintiff, Punaofo Tsugito Tilei, is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on January 

13, 2010. (Doc. 1.) Upon appeal, the Ninth Circuit found that the Complaint states a cognizable 

claim for relief under section 1983 against C.M.O. William J. McGuinness M.D., Jeremy Wang 

M.D., H. Hasrdsri M.D., Joseph Obriza M.D., Julian Kim M.D., Jeffrey Neubarth M.D., N. 

Loadholt, FNP, and P. Rouch, FNP (“Defendants”) for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's 

serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Docs. 43, 44.) 

On April 7, 2016, an order issued based on the ruling of the Ninth Circuit which found 

service on Defendants appropriate and ordered submission of documents by Plaintiff. (Doc. 45.) 

On April 22, 2016, counsel was appointed to represent Plaintiff as directed by the Ninth Circuit. 

(Doc. 47.) On May 31, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking up to and including July 15, 2016 to

comply with the Court’s order of April 7, 2016. (Doc. 48.) Plaintiff seeks this relief under Rule 

6(b)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure based on excusable neglect due to lapse of 

Case 1:10-cv-00069-LJO-SKO Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 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

27

28

2

time before counsel received all requisite documents. (Id.) This equates to good cause.

Plaintiff’s motion notes that he seeks an extension of time accomplish service of process 

on Defendants. (Doc. 48.) However, the Court’s order of April 7, 2016, did not require Plaintiff 

to serve Defendants; rather it required Plaintiff to submit summonses and the Complaint for 

service via the United States Marshal within thirty days. (Doc. 45.) Further, Plaintiff scheduled a 

hearing date for this motion. (Doc. 48.) However, this case is proceeding under Local Rule 

230(l). As such, all motions are deemed submitted when the time to reply has expired, without 

oral argument unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Thus, the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for 

relief under Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 48) is properly vacated. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time, 

filed on May 31, 2016, (Doc. 48), is GRANTED in as much as he must submit the requisite 

summons and copies the Complaint for service on Defendants by the United States Marshal on or 

before July 15, 2016; or if Plaintiff does not desire the United States Marshal to serve Defendants, 

he should file a notice so indicating by that date as well; and the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion is 

VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00069-LJO-SKO Document 49 Filed 06/01/16 Page 2 of 2