GUY v. BAPTISTA, 12-cv-06301-JD. (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20140905b22
Visitors: 17
Filed: Sep. 04, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 04, 2014
Summary: ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 46 JAMES DONATO, District Judge. Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983. On June 30, 2014, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition but did file objections. Plaintiff states that he has not had an opportunity to pursue discovery therefore summary judgment should be denied. However, in the Court's June 24, 2013, service order plaintiff was informed that discovery could proceed in
Summary: ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 46 JAMES DONATO, District Judge. Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983. On June 30, 2014, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition but did file objections. Plaintiff states that he has not had an opportunity to pursue discovery therefore summary judgment should be denied. However, in the Court's June 24, 2013, service order plaintiff was informed that discovery could proceed in ..
More
ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 46
JAMES DONATO, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 30, 2014, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition but did file objections. Plaintiff states that he has not had an opportunity to pursue discovery therefore summary judgment should be denied. However, in the Court's June 24, 2013, service order plaintiff was informed that discovery could proceed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has not explained why he failed to pursue discovery in the past year, but also states in a declaration that he did receive at least documents from defendants. To the extent plaintiff is seeking an extension to pursue more discovery he has not shown good cause.
Plaintiff may have an additional 21 days from the date of service of his order to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's motion for a scheduling order (Docket No. 46) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
