Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00699/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00699-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 

TERRENCE LAMAR WILBURN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GARREN BRATCHER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-0699 TLN GGH PS 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local 

Rule 302(c)(21). 

Presently calendared for hearing on June 18, 2015 are motions to dismiss filed by 

defendant Bratcher (ECF No. 15), and by defendant Gweon. (ECF Nos. 20, 21, 23, 24.) Plaintiff 

has filed an opposition to Bratcher’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff has not filed an 

opposition to Gweon’s motion; however, he has filed a motion to continue the hearing on both of 

the aforementioned motions to August 6, 2015 with an implied request to file his opposition at a 

later time due to defendants’ alleged failure to serve plaintiff with the motions in a timely manner 

and the change in hearing date on Gweon’s motion from January, 2016 to June, 2015. (ECF No. 

29.) A review of the docket and proofs of service filed in conjunction with Gweon and Bratcher’s 

motions to dismiss indicate that plaintiff was served with the motions at least twenty-eight (28) 

days prior to the noticed hearing date of June 18, 2015. (ECF Nos. 19, 20.) See E.D. Local Rule 

Case 2:15-cv-00699-TLN-GGH Document 32 Filed 06/10/15 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

230(b). As plaintiff has now filed an opposition to Bratcher’s motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 31), 

his request is moot as to that motion. In regard to defendant Gweon’s motion, plaintiff’s request 

for a continuance in this regard will be construed as a request for extension of time in which to 

oppose that motion and will be granted. 

Also before the court is plaintiff’s motion to remand, filed April 20, 2015, and noticed for 

hearing on August 6, 2015.1 (ECF Nos. 6, 28.) 

Having reviewed the record, the court has determined that oral argument would not be of 

material assistance in determining the aforementioned pending motions. Accordingly, the court 

will not entertain oral argument, and will determine the motions on the record, including the 

briefing in support of and in opposition to the pending motions. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). 

 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The June 18, 2015 hearing on the motions to dismiss filed by defendants Bratcher and 

Gweon, (ECF Nos. 15, 20), and the August 6, 2015 hearing on plaintiff’s motion to remand, (ECF 

Nos. 6, 28), are vacated; 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion to continue, construed as a request for extension of time in which to 

file an opposition, (ECF No. 29), is granted in part. Plaintiff shall file his opposition to defendant 

Gweon’s motion to dismiss by July 9, 2015. 

 3. The motions will be submitted on the record after the time for filing opposition and 

replies have passed. 

Dated: June 10, 2015 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

GGH:076/Wilburn0699.vac(2) 

 

1

 Plaintiff’s motion was previously noticed for June 4, 2015; however, plaintiff subsequently renoticed it. (ECF No. 17.) 

Case 2:15-cv-00699-TLN-GGH Document 32 Filed 06/10/15 Page 2 of 2