Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01649/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01649-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TROY MITCHELL NAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLIFF ALLENBY,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01649-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER:

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF No. 24); AND

GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF 

No. 25)

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 5.) This matter 

proceeds against Defendant Duvall on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation and Fourth 

Amendment unlawful search claims. (ECF No. 6.)

On December 9, 2014, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations to 

grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s request for judicial notice, and to grant in part 

and deny in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 23.) The parties were afforded 

fourteen days to file written objections to the findings and recommendations. 

On December 22, 2014, Defendant moved to extend time to file objections to 

January 9, 2015 due to defense counsel’s participation in an unanticipated federal 

Case 1:11-cv-01649-LJO-MJS Document 26 Filed 01/07/15 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

appeal of an unrelated state court order. (ECF No. 24.) Also on December 22, 2014, 

Plaintiff moved to extend time to file objections by ninety days to conduct additional legal 

research. (ECF No. 25.)

Defendant has presented good cause for a minimal extension of time. Plaintiff 

also has presented good cause; however, in light of the limited nature of the findings and 

recommendations, which are largely in Plaintiff’s favor, a ninety day extension is

unwarranted. The parties will be afforded thirty (30) days from the date of service of this 

order to file and serve written objections to the findings and recommendations.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED IN 

PART;

3. Any party may file and serve written objections to the findings and 

recommendations within thirty (30) days of the service of this order; and

4. Any reply to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen (14) 

days after service of the objections.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01649-LJO-MJS Document 26 Filed 01/07/15 Page 2 of 2