Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00012/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00012-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE GOMEZ,

CDCR # AG-3761,

Civil No. 11cv0012 BTM (JMA)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION 

AS MOOT [ECF No. 49] 

AND

2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO AMEND

SCHEDULING ORDER

[ECF No. 50]

vs.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

On September 11, 2012, Defendant Matthew Carpenter filed a Motion for Summary

Judgment or partial Summary Judgment pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 56(a) (ECF No. 40). On

September 17, 2012, the Court provided Plaintiff with notice of Defendant’s Motion pursuant

to Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988) and Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th

Cir. 1998) (en banc). Plaintiff was directed to file and serve his Opposition no later than October

12, 2012 (ECF No. 41 at 2).

On October 29, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Postpone Summary

Judgment, and granted him until November 30, 2012 to file his Opposition (ECF No. 41). 

-1- 11cv0012 BTM (JMA)

Case 3:11-cv-00012-BTM-JMA Document 54 Filed 12/26/12 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

Plaintiff did not file his Opposition; instead on December 7, 2012, he filed another

Motion requesting one “final” extension of time, “up to an including December 17, 2012,” to

file his Opposition (ECF No. 49). In addition, on December 12, 2012, Defendant Carpenter filed

an ex parte Motion to Amend, requesting the Court vacate the remaining pretrial dates set out

in the February 6, 2012 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 25) pending the resolution of his Motion

for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50). 

Before the Court had an opportunity to rule on either request, Plaintiff submitted his

Opposition (ECF No. 52), which the Court accepted for filing despite its untimeliness. See

Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987) (“‘[S]trict time limits . . . ought not to

be insisted upon’ where restraints resulting from a pro se prisoner plaintiff’s incarceration

prevent timely compliance with court deadlines.”) (citation omitted). Therefore, Plaintiff’s

Motion for Extension of Time is now moot. 

In light of these extensions, the Court also finds good cause to vacate all pending pretrial

dates pending disposition of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. See Wong v. Regents

of University of California, 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005) (courts have authority to

“manage the cases before it efficiently and effectively” and to permit exceptions to previously

established deadlines for “good reason.”).

Conclusion and Order

Good reason having been shown, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for

Extension of Time (ECF No. 49) as moot; GRANTS Defendant until Friday, January 11, 2013

to file his Reply; and GRANTS Defendant’s ex parte Motion to Alter/Amend the Court’s

February 6, 2012 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 50). All remaining pretrial dates are VACATED

pending resolution of Defendant’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 40).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 26, 2012

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

-2- 11cv0012 BTM (JMA)

Case 3:11-cv-00012-BTM-JMA Document 54 Filed 12/26/12 Page 2 of 2