Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Shehee v. Ahlin, 1:14-cv-00005-LJO-BAM (PC). (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180829807 Visitors: 11
Filed: Aug. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 28, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NGUYEN'S SECOND REQUEST TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR FILING DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS (ECF No. 72) BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee ("Plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff was a civil detainee at the time this action was initiated. Pursuant to the Court's July 19, 2017 Discovery and Scheduling Order, the deadline for filing
More

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NGUYEN'S SECOND REQUEST TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR FILING DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS (ECF No. 72)

Plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee ("Plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff was a civil detainee at the time this action was initiated.

Pursuant to the Court's July 19, 2017 Discovery and Scheduling Order, the deadline for filing all dispositive motions (other than a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust) was May 29, 2018. (ECF No. 41.) On July 11, 2018, the Court granted Defendant Nguyen's motion to extend the deadline to July 30, 2018. (ECF No. 71.)

Currently before the Court is Defendant Nguyen's second request to extend the deadline for filing dispositive motions, filed July 24, 2018. (ECF No. 72.) Defendant Nguyen states that the defense has diligently searched for, and has now contracted with, an outside medical professional with the appropriate expertise to speak to the matters raised by Plaintiff's complaint. That expert is currently drafting a report of his findings to assist the defense in a motion for summary judgment. Defendant Nguyen contends that, as Plaintiff is no longer in state custody, he will not be prejudiced by the delay. (Id.)

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or otherwise responded to the motion, and the deadline to do so has expired. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

Upon review of the request, and in light of the lack of opposition from Plaintiff, the Court finds that Defendants have shown good cause for modifying the scheduling order in this matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendant Nguyen's second motion to extend the dispositive motion deadline, (ECF No. 72), is GRANTED; and 2. All dispositive motions (other than a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust) shall be filed on or before September 28, 2018.

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