Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

CARRILLO v. GILLESPIE, 2:12-cv-2165-JCM-VCF. (2013)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20130730g52 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jul. 29, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 29, 2013
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge. Presently before the court is pro se prisoner plaintiff Gilberto Carrillo's motion to extend time. (Doc. # 67). The court permitted the defendants to respond to the motion but defendants elected not to oppose the request. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. # 63). Plaintiff moves for a sixty-day extension to file a response in opposition to defendants' motion. (Doc. # 67). This is plaintiff's
More

ORDER

JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.

Presently before the court is pro se prisoner plaintiff Gilberto Carrillo's motion to extend time. (Doc. # 67). The court permitted the defendants to respond to the motion but defendants elected not to oppose the request.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. # 63). Plaintiff moves for a sixty-day extension to file a response in opposition to defendants' motion. (Doc. # 67).

This is plaintiff's first request to extend the time to respond to the motion. The court finds good cause to permit plaintiff an additional thirty days to respond. Plaintiff has thirty days from this order to file his response to defendants' motion.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff's motion to extend time (doc. # 67) be, and the same hereby, is GRANTED consistent with the foregoing. Plaintiff shall have thirty days from this order to file his response.

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