United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINALD B. DeJOHNETTE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SUSAN HUBBARD, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 08-4844 MMC (PR) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME; DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

FILE OPPOSITION

(Docket No. 47)

On October 22, 2008, plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to his

serious medical needs by prison and medical officials at Salinas Valley State Prison

(“SVSP”). On September 4, 2009, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under the

unenumerated portion of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), on the ground plaintiff has

not exhausted his administrative remedies and, alternatively, under Rule 12(b)(6) on the

ground plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

According to the briefing schedule set in the order of service, plaintiff’s opposition to

defendants’ motion was due thirty days after defendants filed their motion. Plaintiff did not

file an opposition; instead, he filed a motion for a continuance under Rule 56(f), a motion for

a court order for a physical examination under Rule 35, and a motion for a preliminary

injunction. Defendants opposed the motions. 

The Court, by order filed June 29, 2010, denied plaintiff’s motions and sua sponte

Case 3:08-cv-04844-MMC Document 48 Filed 08/05/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

afforded plaintiff an extension of time to file opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss,

specifically, an extension to file said opposition within thirty days of the filing of the Court’s

order.

Plaintiff did not file opposition to the motion to dismiss. Rather, on July 29, 2010, the

thirtieth day after the Court’s order was filed, plaintiff sent to the Court a 123-page request

for an additional ninety days to file opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. In support

of his request, plaintiff asserts that prison officials at both SVSP and Lancaster State Prison,

where plaintiff previously was incarcerated, fraudulently filed pleadings in plaintiff’s state

habeas proceedings in 2009, and have interfered with his receipt of legal mail. Plaintiff

concludes therefrom that prison officials currently are interfering, or will interfere, with his

ability to prosecute the instant action. 

Plaintiff’s request will be denied. The asserted reasons for an extension of time are

not persuasive, particularly in view of plaintiff’s ability to file the above-referenced 123-page

request, which includes more than 100 pages of exhibits. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was

filed more than ten months ago. Plaintiff has been allowed more than nine months to respond

to the motion, and the Court has explained in detail to plaintiff what he must do in order to

avoid dismissal. Plaintiff’s choice to file the instant motion rather than comply with the

Court’s order to file an opposition does not entitle him to a further extension of time. 

Accordingly, within fifteen days of the date this order is filed, plaintiff shall file with

the court and serve on defendants his opposition to the motion to dismiss. Defendants shall

file a reply brief no later than ten days after the opposition is filed. If plaintiff does not

timely file an opposition to the motion to dismiss, the motion will be deemed submitted as of

the date the opposition is due.

This order terminates Docket No. 47.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 5, 2010 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04844-MMC Document 48 Filed 08/05/10 Page 2 of 2