ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO MODIFY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(ECF No. 129)

BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Jared M. Villery ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds on Plaintiff's claim against Defendants Kendall, Acosta, Naficy, Jones, Guerrero, Aithal, Seymour, Carrizales, Woodard, Pallares, Hernandez, Fisher, Grimmig, and Miranda for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendants Beard and Diaz for promulgation of a policy to deny single cell housing for inmates with serious mental disorders, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The case arises out of Plaintiff's allegations concerning allegedly improper housing decisions for Plaintiff, who suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD").

On February 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking an order directing the Secretary of CDCR to house him in a single-occupancy cell. (ECF No. 62.) On November 30, 2018, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff's motion be granted in part. (ECF No. 111.) Those findings and recommendations were adopted in part, and the District Judge ordered that the McCall Report be placed in Plaintiff's health record and that Defendant Diaz ensure that an immediate review be undertaken to determine whether Plaintiff's condition requires that he be designated for single-cell status in light of the McCall Report. (ECF No. 123.) Defendants filed a notice of compliance with the Court's order on April 19, 2019. (ECF No. 126.)

On May 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 128.) Defendants' response is currently due on or before June 5, 2019.1 Currently before the Court is Defendants' request for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's motion, together with a declaration of counsel, filed May 16, 2019. (ECF No. 129.) Although Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to respond to Defendants' request, the Court finds a response unnecessary, and the motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

The declaration in support of Defendants' application explains that defense counsel will be unavailable from May 20 through May 30, 2019 and attending a mandatory statewide section meeting on June 4 and June 5, 2019, leaving only a few days to review the 127-page motion and compile a response. (ECF No. 129.) As noted in the declaration, defense counsel previously alerted both Plaintiff and the Court of her upcoming unavailability during the month of May. (ECF No. 121.) Defendants therefore request a fourteen-day extension of the current deadline to allow counsel time to properly address Plaintiff's motion.

Having considered the request, the Court finds good cause to modify the briefing schedule in this matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). The Court further finds that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the brief extension granted here.

Accordingly, Defendants' request for an extension of time, (ECF No. 129), is GRANTED. Defendants' response to Plaintiff's emergency motion to modify the preliminary injunction is due on or before June 19, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.