Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02185/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02185-12/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GREGORY C. BONTEMPS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SALINAS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-2185 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a California inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On November 5, 2014 defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on 

exhaustion grounds, ECF No. 51, and a motion for a protective order staying discovery, ECF No. 

52. On January 14, 2015, the court issued an order to show cause why plaintiff’s case should not 

be dismissed for lack of prosecution. ECF No. 56. On January 26, 2006 plaintiff filed an 

opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 57. Accordingly, the order to 

show cause is discharged. 

 On February 23, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for a thirty-day extension of time to file an 

amended opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motion. The court notes that plaintiff 

identified an error in the court’s January 14, 2015 order, ECF No. 56, in which the date of the 

order is listed as “January 13, 2014” instead of “January 13, 2015.” Good cause appearing, 

plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file an amended opposition is granted. Pursuant to 

Case 2:12-cv-02185-TLN-AC Document 60 Filed 03/18/15 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

Local Rule 230(l), defendants shall have seven (7) days after plaintiff’s opposition has been filed 

in CM/ECF to serve and file a reply to the amended opposition. 

 In addition to their motion for a protective order staying discovery, ECF No. 52, 

defendants have filed a motion to modify or vacate the Discovery and Scheduling Order, ECF No. 

46, to extend the deadline for discovery and the filing of pre-trial motions. ECF No. 59. Good 

cause appearing, defendants’ motions are granted. Discovery is stayed pending resolution of 

defendants’ summary judgment motion, ECF No. 51, and the deadlines for discovery and the 

filing of pre-trial motions set forth in the Discovery and Scheduling Order, ECF No. 46, are 

vacated. An amended scheduling order will issue if necessary after defendants’ summary 

judgment motion on exhaustion grounds is resolved. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendants’ motion for a protective order staying discovery, ECF No. 52, is 

GRANTED; 

2. Defendants’ motion to vacate the dates in the Discovery and Scheduling Order, ECF 

No. 59, is GRANTED; 

3. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file an amended opposition, ECF No. 58, 

is GRANTED; 

4. Plaintiff shall have thirty days from the date of this order in which to file an amended 

opposition; and 

5. Defendants shall have seven days from the date plaintiff’s amended opposition is filed 

to file a reply to plaintiff’s amended opposition. 

DATED: March 18, 2015 

 

Case 2:12-cv-02185-TLN-AC Document 60 Filed 03/18/15 Page 2 of 2