Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00136/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00136-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRAYSON L. HARE, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-12-0136 JAM GGH PS

vs.

SHIRLEY J. SIMPSON, et al., ORDER

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302(21), pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed a motion to strike defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed

November 30, 2012 and scheduled to be heard on January 31, 2013. The basis for the motion to

strike is plaintiff’s belief that defendants, although proceeding in pro se, are actually represented

by counsel who prepared their motion but who has not entered an appearance in this case. 

Plaintiff additionally asserts that the motion should be stricken because the proof of service of

defendants’ motion does not contain a statement “under penalty of perjury,” and because some

exhibits attached to the motion do not contain the proper foundation. 

Plaintiff’s motion to strike will be taken up concurrently with defendants’ motion

to dismiss on January 31, 2013. The procedural arguments made by plaintiff in his motion to

1

Case 2:12-cv-00136-TLN-GGH Document 22 Filed 01/04/13 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

strike can be raised along with his opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss, which shall

address the substance of the motion. 

Plaintiff further seeks an extension of time in which to respond to the motion to

dismiss. Plaintiff has not shown good cause for needing an extension of time, other than the

alleged procedural defects raised above, which can easily be raised in his opposition. Plaintiff

does not, for example, claim that he did not timely receive the motion, despite its failure to

include a statement under penalty of perjury. Therefore, plaintiff’s request will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to strike will be heard on January 31, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.;

and

2. Plaintiff’s request for extension of time in which to respond to the motion to

dismiss, filed December 20, 2012 (dkt. no. 20), is denied. Plaintiff shall file his opposition by

January 17, 2013.

DATED: January 3, 2013

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

GGH:076/Hare0136.eot.wpd

2

Case 2:12-cv-00136-TLN-GGH Document 22 Filed 01/04/13 Page 2 of 2