Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02890/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02890-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY MORRIS,

Plaintiff, No. C 07-2890 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING LIMITED

CONTINUANCE

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA AT

SAN FRANCISCO; SAFECO INSURANCE

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court is plaintiff Gregory Morris’ motion to continue the March 19, 2008

hearing date on the State Bar of California defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. Plaintiff,

who is currently incarcerated in the Fresno County Jail, seeks to continue the hearing to a

date subsequent to September 17, 2008 – after which plaintiff expects to be released from

his incarceration. Defendants have opposed the motion. 

Generally speaking, defendants’ opposition raises legitimate grounds for denying

plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff appears to have already been in custody when he filed his

complaint, and the federal rules normally require defendants to respond to the complaint

within 20 days of service, which means that defendants’ motion is timely. Moreover, as an

incarcerated civil plaintiff who voluntarily chose to bring this action, plaintiff is not

guaranteed to be present at the hearing on defendants’ dismissal motion, as a matter of

course. Furthermore, plaintiff cannot represent to the court with any certainty that he will

definitively be released from his incarceration “sometime in June of 2008,” as plaintiff

claims. Finally, and in view of all the foregoing, the court finds that plaintiff’s request for a

six month continuance of the hearing date, is unreasonable and would unduly prejudice

Case 4:07-cv-02890-PJH Document 33 Filed 02/29/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

defendants. 

The court will, however, give plaintiff an additional opportunity to submit an

opposition brief in response to defendants’ motion. Accordingly, the court hereby GRANTS

a limited continuance with respect to defendants’ motion to dismiss, as follows: plaintiff

shall submit an opposition brief no later than March 28, 2008. Defendants shall submit

their reply brief no later than April 4, 2008. Defendants’ motion will thereafter be submitted

on the papers, however. The March 19, 2008 hearing date is therefore VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 29, 2008 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-02890-PJH Document 33 Filed 02/29/08 Page 2 of 2