Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Silverman v. Lien, 5:17-cv-03700-BLF (PR). (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20181128b53 Visitors: 9
Filed: Nov. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION; GRANTING MOTION TO CORRECT LEAD NAME OF CASE; DENYING OTHER MOTION (Docket Nos. 44, 47) BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Plaintiff, a California inmate proceeding pro se, filed a second amended civil rights complaint ("SAC") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against staff at the Humboldt County Correctional Facility ("HCCF"). On July 11, 2018, after finding the SAC stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment cl
More

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION; GRANTING MOTION TO CORRECT LEAD NAME OF CASE; DENYING OTHER MOTION

(Docket Nos. 44, 47)

Plaintiff, a California inmate proceeding pro se, filed a second amended civil rights complaint ("SAC") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff at the Humboldt County Correctional Facility ("HCCF"). On July 11, 2018, after finding the SAC stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim, the Court issued an order directing Defendants to file a dispositive motion no later than November 12, 2018. (Docket No. 18.) Defendants Lien, Barnhart, and Burleson have filed a motion requesting a ninety-day extension of time to do so. (Docket No. 44.)

Having shown good cause, Defendants' motion is GRANTED. Defendants shall file a dispositive motion within ninety (90) days from the date this order is filed. Plaintiff shall file an opposition no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date Defendants' motion is filed. Defendants shall file a reply no later than fourteen (14) days after Plaintiff's opposition is filed.

Plaintiffs motion to correct the lead name of the case from "Iver Fiam" to "Iver Lien" is GRANTED. (Docket No. 47.) The Clerk is instructed to update the docket accordingly. As for Plaintiffs motion "to re-process [his] previous filed motion for physical examination," (id.), it is DENIED for the same reason the original motion was denied, i.e., for failure to serve the motion Defendants as required under Rule 65(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Docket Nos. 36, 46.)

This order terminates Docket Nos. 44 and 47.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer