Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05453/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05453-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOHAMMED ABDALLA )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

 v. )

 )

M. C. KRAMER, Warden, et al., )

)

 )

Defendants. )

)

____________________________________)

1:02-CV-5453 REC SMS P 

 

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF 

TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

(DOCUMENT #73)

ORDER DENYING EXTENSION OF

TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO REPLY

TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION

(DOCUMENT #75)

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On

August 17, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’

motion for summary judgment of July 5, 2005. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s motion shall be

granted. 

On September 26, 2005, defendants filed a motion for extension of time to file a reply to

plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Defendants stated that they received a copy

of plaintiff’s opposition on September 20, 2005; however, plaintiff has not filed the opposition with the

court. Because the opposition has not been filed with the court, defendants’ motion for extension of time

is premature and shall be denied without prejudice to renewal at a later time.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’ motion for

Case 1:02-cv-05453-LJO -SMS Document 77 Filed 09/28/05 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

summary judgment is GRANTED until October 7, 2005; and

2. Defendants’ motion for extension of time to file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition is

DENIED without prejudice to renewal at a later time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

b6edp0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05453-LJO -SMS Document 77 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 2