Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01952/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01952-11/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DANNY R. GARCIA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C/O HEATH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-1952 JAM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff requests an extension of time within which to file an opposition to defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 58. For good cause shown, the court will grant 

plaintiff’s request and provide an extended deadline. No further extensions of time will be 

granted absent the showing of a compelling reason. 

 Plaintiff has also filed a “Motion for Request to Enter (Admissions) and Submissions,” 

ECF No. 57, in which plaintiff requests that the court take judicial notice of his “submissions.” 

However, the submitted matters appear to be comprised of requests for admissions (though 

framed more like interrogatories) that plaintiff has served, or proposes to serve, on defendants. 

No responses are included, and thus there is nothing of substance for the court to judicially notice. 

Moreover, the matters addressed extend beyond the question of administrative exhaustion, which 

is the only question currently before this court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

Finally, discovery closed in this action on August 28, 2015, see ECF No. 30, and has not been 

Case 2:13-cv-01952-JAM-AC Document 59 Filed 02/03/16 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

reopened. If plaintiff has obtained discovery relevant to the question of administrative 

exhaustion, he should include those discovery responses in his opposition to the pending motion 

for summary judgment. For these several reasons, plaintiff’s motion will be denied without 

prejudice. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time within which to file his opposition to 

defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 58, is granted. Plaintiff shall file 

and serve his opposition on or before March 25, 2016.1 

2. Defendants may file and serve a reply within fourteen days after service of plaintiff’s 

opposition. 

 3. Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice, ECF No. 57, is denied without prejudice. 

 SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 2, 2016 

 

1

 Plaintiff’s opposition will be his only relevant filing addressing defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment; no surreply will be permitted. 

Case 2:13-cv-01952-JAM-AC Document 59 Filed 02/03/16 Page 2 of 2