Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02569/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02569-13/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RODNEY DIAL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SCOTT HEATLEY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-2569 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 12, 2015, this court directed defendants to reserve their respective motions for summary judgment on plaintiff, due to his recent prison 

transfers and difficulty in obtaining his legal documents. See ECF No. 68. Due to yet another 

prison transfer, plaintiff now requests a 90-day extension of time within which to file his 

oppositions to the motions for summary judgment. See ECF No. 71. In support of his request, 

plaintiff has submitted a copy of the list maintained by the California Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation that tracks plaintiff’s recent inter- and intra-institutional transfers. See ECF 

No. 72 at 2. This document demonstrates that, on May 14, 2015, plaintiff was transferred from 

the California Health Care Facility in Stockton, to the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San 

Diego. Plaintiff states that he is currently awaiting CDC Classification and has no access to his 

legal materials or the prison law library. ECF No. 71 at 2. 

Case 2:12-cv-02569-AC Document 73 Filed 06/03/15 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

 For good cause shown, plaintiff’s request for an extension of time will be granted; in 

addition, for court administrative purposes, the Clerk of Court will be directed to designate the 

pending motions for summary judgment re-filed as of the dates defendants informed the court that 

the motions had been re-served on plaintiff. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 71, is granted; plaintiff shall file 

and serve separate oppositions to defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment on or 

before August 28, 2015; defendants may file their replies within fourteen days after service of 

plaintiff’s oppositions. 

 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to designate on the docket that the pending motions for 

summary judgment are effectively re-filed on the dates they were re-served on plaintiff, viz., the 

motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Casey, ECF No. 58, shall be designated re-filed 

on May 19, 2015 (per ECF No. 70), and the motion for summary judgment filed by the remaining 

defendants, ECF No. 65, shall be designated re-filed on May 18, 2015 (per ECF No. 69). 

DATED: June 2, 2015 

Case 2:12-cv-02569-AC Document 73 Filed 06/03/15 Page 2 of 2