Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01978/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01978-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Guffee
Defendant
Ricardo Valdez
Plaintiff
Voron
Defendant
Walker
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICARDO VALDEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

WALKER, GUFFEE, and VORON,

et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:08-cv-1978 DAE

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

On March 2, 2010, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. 

(“Mot.,” Doc. # 18.) Plaintiff’s Motion is based upon Defendants alleged failure to

reply to Plaintiff’s Complaint within the time provided by Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(a) and alleged failure to file a motion for an extension of time in

which to respond. (See Mot. at 3.) On February 26, 2010, Defendants filed a

Motion for a 45-Day Extension of Time to file a responsive pleading. (Doc. # 16.) 

On March 1, 2010, this Court granted Defendants’ motion for a forty-five day

extension of time to file a responsive pleading to the Amended Complaint. (Doc. #

17.) After reviewing Plaintiff’s Motion and the supporting memoranda, it appears

to the Court that Plaintiff has not yet received notice of Defendant’s motion for an

Case 2:08-cv-01978-DAE Document 19 Filed 03/04/10 Page 1 of 2
2

extension or this Court’s order granting such extension. By order of this Court,

Defendants have until April 22, 2010 to file a reply. Accordingly, the Court

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, March 3, 2010.

_____________________________

David Alan Ezra

United States District Judge

Valdez v. Correctional Officers Walker, et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-1978 DAE;

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

Case 2:08-cv-01978-DAE Document 19 Filed 03/04/10 Page 2 of 2