ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF COURT ORDER OR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME [ECF Nos. 37, 39]

ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF'S D[IS]POSITIVE AND CLARIFICATION MOTION, REQUEST TO AMEND PLAINTIFF'S D[IS]POSITIVE AND CLARIFICATION MOTION, AND PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED DISPOSITIVE MOTION [ECF Nos. 31, 34, 40]

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR SET DATE FOR OPPOSING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF No. 45]

DENNIS L. BECK, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On August 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint in this case. On February 27, 2013, the Court issued a Findings and Recommendation which recommended that the action proceed on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant J. Benak for deliberate indifference to a medical need. The Court recommended that all other claims and defendants be dismissed from the action. On April 4, 2013, the District Judge adopted the Findings and Recommendation in full. Defendant Benak filed an answer to the complaint on May 3, 2013.

On May 7, 2013, the Court issued a scheduling order. The deadline for dispositive motions was set for December 2, 2013. On November 26, 2013, Defendant filed a motion to extend the time for filing dispositive motions by sixty days. On December 3, 2013, the Court granted the motion and extended the deadline for filing dispositive motions to February 4, 2014. On December 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed a pleading entitled "Plaintiff's Depositive [sic] and Clarification Motion." Defendant filed an opposition to the motion on December 23, 2013. On January 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a sixty day extension of time to file an amended "Dispositive and Clarification Motion" as well as a request to amend his "Depositive [sic] and Clarification Motion." The Court granted an extension of thirty days on February 4, 2014, and the deadline for the "Amended Dispositive Motion" was set for March 10, 2014. On February 6, 2014, Defendant filed a request for clarification of the Court's February 4, 2014, order, or in the alternative, a motion to extend the deadline for dispositive motion filings for all parties. On March 6, 2014, Defendant filed a further request for an extension of time of 7 days. On March 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed an "Amended Dispositive Motion." On March 13, 2014, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff's Amended Dispositive Motion on March 26, 2014. On April 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a set date for opposing the motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, a motion to extend time for filing an opposition. On July 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. On July 3, 2014, Defendant filed a reply to the opposition.

DISCUSSION

I. Motions/Requests Concerning Deadline for Filing Dispositive Motions

In his request for clarification of the Court's order of February 4, 2014, Defendant states the Court did not state whether the February 4, 2014, order extending time was addressed to all parties or just to Plaintiff. In the event the motion deadline was for Plaintiff only, Defendant requested an extension of time for filing a dispositive motion. Thereafter, Defendant requested an additional extension of 7 days. Good cause having been presented, the Court grants an extension of time for filing dispositive motions nunc pro tunc to March 13, 2014. The Court considers Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as timely filed.

II. Motions/Requests Concerning Plaintiff's Dispositive Motion

It is unclear what Plaintiff seeks or what his purpose is in filing what he terms a "D[is]positive and Clarification Motion." The Court has reviewed the initial motion and his "Amended Dispositive Motion." The pleadings generally constitute further argument or a restatement of the facts as set forth in his complaint. Defendant is correct that the motion is not permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules.

To the extent the motion can be considered a motion for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, the motion is procedurally and substantively deficient. Plaintiff does not set forth a "Statement of Undisputed Facts" as required by Local Rule 260(a). Plaintiff does not argue or establish that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. He fails to identify which facts are undisputed and cites no evidence in support of any purported undisputed fact. Further, he cites no case law which would support entitlement to summary judgment. As noted above, the motion is largely a restatement of his amended complaint. Therefore, the Court will disregard Plaintiff's D[is]positive and Clarification Motion, Request to Amend D[is]positive Motion, and Amended Dispositive Motion.

III. Request for Set Date for Opposing Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on March 13, 2014. Plaintiff's opposition was due on April 3, 2014. Local Rule 230(l). On April 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a pleading entitled "Plaintiff Requesting for Set Date for Opposing Motion for Summary Judgment." Plaintiff states he received Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on March 17, 2014. Plaintiff asks that the deadline for filing an opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment be extended. The Court did not rule on the motion for extension at that time. On July 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed his opposition. Although the motion is untimely, given that the Court did not rule on the motion until now, and for good cause having been presented by Plaintiff in his motion, the Court grants Plaintiff an extension of time to file his opposition nunc pro tunc to July 2, 2014.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Defendant's Request for Clarification of Court Order [ECF No. 37] and Motion for Extension of Time [ECF No. 39] are GRANTED, and the Court HEREBY GRANTS an extension of time for filing dispositive motions nunc pro tunc to March 13, 2014;

2) Plaintiff's D[is]positive and Clarification Motion [ECF No. 31], Request to Amend Plaintiff's D[is]positive and Clarification Motion [ECF No. 34], and Amended Dispositive Motion [ECF No. 40] are DISREGARDED; and

3) Plaintiff's Request for a Set Date for Opposing Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 45] is GRANTED, and the Court HEREBY GRANTS an extension of time for filing an opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment nunc pro tunc to July 2, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.