Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05777/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05777-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY DILLINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-05777-YGR (PR)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR SECOND EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION

On May 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for a second extension of time in which to file 

his opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 64. Specifically, he requests 

an extension up to and including August 10, 2015, which is ninety days from May 10, 2015, the 

date he signed his request. Id. at 3. Plaintiff claims he is requesting this second extension because 

he needs more time to conduct discovery; however, Plaintiff does not explain how the discovery 

he seeks will aid him in filing his opposition. Plaintiff also claims that he is “mentaly [sic] slow.” 

Id. at 2. While Plaintiff claims to be suffering from “ongoing multiple mental illness,” id., the 

record shows that he has been able to continue to pursue this action as well as his other pending 

action, Case No. C 12-6537 YGR (PR). 

Having read and considered Plaintiff’s request, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is GRANTED 

IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court notes that Plaintiff has already received one

previous extension of time to file his opposition. The original deadline for his opposition was 

March 27, 2015, but it was extended to May 15, 2015 when the Court first granted Plaintiff an 

extension. Therefore, Plaintiff has already received forty-nine additional days to file his 

opposition. Nevertheless, the Court finds that a second extension of time is appropriate. 

However, the Court will not grant Plaintiff’s request for the full ninety-day extension. Instead, 

Case 4:13-cv-05777-YGR Document 69 Filed 05/28/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff is granted another sixty additional days to file his opposition. Plaintiff must file his 

opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment no later than July 14, 2015.

Defendants reply to the opposition must be filed no later than July 28, 2015.

No further extensions of time will be granted in this case absent extraordinary

circumstances.

This Order terminates Docket No. 64.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

May 28, 2015

Case 4:13-cv-05777-YGR Document 69 Filed 05/28/15 Page 2 of 2