Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05999/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05999-1/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

1The case was referred to Magistrate Goldner on August 9, 2003, (Doc. 58), and referred back to the

undersigned on May 2, 2004, (Doc. 65).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO GUYTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. McVICAR, et. al., 

Defendants.

 /

CV F 00 5999 OWW LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. 69.) 

 Francisco Guyton (“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 February 13, 2003, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations that

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary

Judgment be denied and that Defendant Loo be granted leave to file a dispositive Motion on the

retaliation claim not addressed in the Motion. (Doc. 52.) On March 12, 2003, the District Court

adopted the Recommendation in full and granted Defendant Loo to and including April 16, 2003,

to file a dispositive motion. (Doc. 52.) 

On April 14, 2003, Defendant Loo filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 55.) 

Magistrate Judge Goldner issued Findings and Recommendations on January 26, 2004, that the

Motion for Summary Judgment be granted.1 (Doc. 62.) The District Court adopted the

Findings and Recommendations in full on March 30, 2004, and on September 24, 2004,

Case 1:00-cv-05999-OWW -LJO Document 70 Filed 07/07/05 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

2

Judgment was entered. (Docs. 64, 66.) 

On October 1, 2004, the District Court issued an Order “Setting Aside Judgment” which

did not recognize that Defendant Loo, for whom the Court granted Summary Judgment on March

30, 2004, was the last remaining defendant in the case. It appeared that the Order Setting Aside

Judgment was inadvertently issued. 

On June 6, 2005, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the action should not be

terminated. Plaintiff filed a Motion for an Extension of time on June 21, 2005, stating that he

needed the time to procure medical records. A review of this motion, however, reveals that it

was not served on the opposing party pursuant to the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. See, Local Rule 5-135(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 5. 

Accordingly, the Motion for an Extension of time is DENIED. 

Plaintiff is reminded that according to this Court’s review of the record, all claims against

any defendants were resolved. The Court’s Order to Show Cause why the action should not now

be closed only provides the parties with an opportunity to bring to light any claims or defendants

that may have been overlooked by the Court in that they were not resolved. It is not an

opportunity for Plaintiff to bring new claims, re-raise or re-litigate claims already resolved by the

Court. Thus, it is unclear to the Court why Plaintiff would need time to procure medical records. 

The Order to Show Cause was clear in that the parties were to provide any legal reason why the

case should continue in light of the Court’s findings. In any event, as Plaintiff failed to serve the

opposing party, his Motion must be DENIED. Any response to the Order to Show Cause is DUE

on or before July 21, 2005. Any pleadings not served upon the opposing party in compliance

with the Local and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be stricken from the record and not

considered by the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-05999-OWW -LJO Document 70 Filed 07/07/05 Page 2 of 2