Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02295/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02295-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRY A. HAZLE, JR., )

) 2:08-cv-02295-GEB-EFB 

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER GRANTING WESTCARE’S

) REQUEST FOR MORE TIME TO FILE

MITCH CROFOOT, Individually and as ) AN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S

Parole Officer of the California ) CROSS MOTION

Department of Corrections; BRENDA )

WILDING, Individually and as Unit )

Supervisor of the California )

Department of Corrections; MATTHEW )

CATE, Individually and as Secretary)

of the California Department of )

Corrections and Rehabilitation; )

SCOTT KERNAN, Individually and as )

Chief Deputy Secretary of Adult )

Operations of the California )

Department of Corrections and )

Rehabilitation; TIM HOFFMAN, )

Individually and as Director of the)

Division of Adult Parole Operations)

in California; Deputy Commissioner )

JALLINGS, Individually and as )

Deputy Commissioner of the Board of)

Prison Hearings; WESTCARE, a Nevada) 

Non-Profit Corporation, )

) 

Defendants. )

)

Defendant Westcare California Inc. (“Westcare”) filed an ex 

parte objection to what it argues is Plaintiff’s untimely filing of a

cross motion for partial summary judgment (Plaintiff’s cross motion”). 

Westcare argues Plaintiff’s cross-motion was filed in contravenion of

the Court’s scheduling order. Westcare’s position is arguable and

could be correct. However, rather than reaching this issue and

deciding whether the last law and motion hearing date prescribed in

Case 2:08-cv-02295-GEB-EFB Document 77 Filed 01/22/10 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

the scheduling order precluded a party from filing a related or

counter motion prescribed in Local Rule 230(e), a Minute Order was

filed on January 20, 2010 setting forth a briefing scheduling for

Plaintiff’s cross-motion. Westcare states in its ex parte objection

that it requests “at least three weeks to file an opposition to

[P]laintiff’s cross motion.” This request is granted. Therefore,

Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s cross motion shall be filed by

February 5, 2010. Any reply shall be filed by February 12, 2010. The

cross motion will be heard on February 22, 2010, commencing at 9:00

a.m.

Dated: January 21, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:08-cv-02295-GEB-EFB Document 77 Filed 01/22/10 Page 2 of 2