Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02320/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02320-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Davis
Defendant
Joseph A. Sherman
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 JOSEPH A. SHERMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2320 LKK EFB PS

vs.

CITY OF DAVIS, ORDER

Defendant.

 /

On March 2, 2007, the court granted the parties a 60 day extension of time to complete

discovery.

In response, defendant submitted a letter to the court on March 5, 2007, asking for

clarification on whether Local Rule 78-230(m) applies to this case and whether the March 2

order also extended the law and motion cutoff date.

The court clarifies those points as follows. Local Rule 78-230(m) does not apply to the

present case because it is not a “prisoner case” as defined by the Local Rules. See Local Rule 1-

101 (“‘Prisoner Cases’ are cases brought in propria persona by a person in custody who is

seeking habeas relief (28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq.) or any relief authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et

seq.”). The present case is designated a “pro se” rather than a “prisoner” case. Although it

appears that plaintiff has been intermittently jailed for various periods during the pendency of

Case 2:04-cv-02320-LKK -EFB Document 60 Filed 03/07/07 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

2

this action, he was not incarcerated at the time he initiated this action. See Plaintiff’s

Application to Proceed IFP. Further, plaintiff does not seek habeas relief nor does he challenge

the conditions of his past confinement. For the foregoing reasons, Local Rule 78-230(m) is

inapplicable to the present case.

Defendant also queries whether the March 2, 2007, order granting the parties an

additional 60 days to complete discovery also extends the law and motion deadline. That order

did not address the law and motion deadline. To the extent either party needs additional time to

file a motion beyond the April 25, 2007, deadline, they may submit an appropriate application

under Local Rule 6-144 for such an extension.

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: March 6, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02320-LKK -EFB Document 60 Filed 03/07/07 Page 2 of 2