Shepard
v.
Perez

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAMar 15, 2012
CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00023-DLB PC (E.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2012)

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00023-DLB PC

03-15-2012

LAMONT SHEPARD, Plaintiff, v. R. PEREZ, et al., Defendants.


ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE OPPOSITION (DOC. 39)


ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE

COURT TO ELECTRONICALLY FILE

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(DOC. 38)

Plaintiff Lamont Shepard ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendants E. Dela Cruz, P. Garcia, L. A. Martinez, R. Perez, J. Soto, and A. Trevino for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion, filed February 28, 2012, for extension of time, up to and including April 2, 2012, in which to file their opposition. Doc. 39. Plaintiff filed an opposition on March 9, 2012. Doc. 40. Defendants filed their reply on March 14, 2012. Doc. 41. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

Defendants request additional time because they cannot view the exhibits submitted in support of Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, filed February 9, 2012. The exhibits were lodged, not electronically filed. Plaintiff contends that pursuant to the Court's First Informational Order, Plaintiff is not required to serve Defendants with his motions if the Defendants are represented by the Office of the Attorney General, as is the case here. However, because the exhibits were lodged, Defendants are not able to view the exhibits electronically and would be prejudiced in responding to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Defendants have presented good cause, and their motion will be granted.

Regarding Plaintiff's exhibits, the Clerk of the Court had lodged them because several exhibits, when electronically scanned, were not legible. However, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to scan and electronically file these exhibits. The parties may file appropriate motions if there are issues with the exhibits.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants are granted up to and including April 2, 2012 in which to file their opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; and
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to electronically file Plaintiff's lodged exhibits in support of Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.


IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dennis L. Beck


UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE