(TEMP)(PC) Shahid v. Aldaz, et al., No. 2:2014cv00454 - Document 43 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 02/24/16 ordering plaintiff's 2/16/16 motion for extension of time 42 is granted. Within 30 days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition to defendants' ; cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's 6/10/15 motion for summary judgment 30 is denied without prejudice to its renewal with the filing of plaintiff's opposition to defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintif f shall renew his motion for summary judgment merely by filing with his opposition a notice of motion for summary judgment. Thereafter plaintiff's renewed motion for summary judgment will be submitted for findings and recommendations on all the papers on file following the filing of defendants' reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UMAR SHAHID, 12 No. 2:14-cv-0454 JAM KJN P (TEMP) Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 I. ALDAZ et al., 15 ORDER Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with a civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 10, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 19 No. 30) On June 17, 2015, then-Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd granted defendants an extension 20 of time to file an opposition to plaintiff’s motion until after the court had ruled on their pending 21 motion for summary judgment based on plaintiff’s purported failure to exhaust administrative 22 remedies prior to filing suit. (Doc. No. 34) On November 12, 2015, the undersigned issued 23 findings and recommendations, recommending granting in part and denying in part defendants’ 24 motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 37) On December 29, 2015, the assigned district judge 25 adopted the findings and recommendations in full. (Doc. No. 40) In accordance with Judge 26 Drozd’s prior order, on January 19, 2016, defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. 27 (Doc. No. 41) On February 16, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to respond 28 to defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 42) 1 1 Good cause appearing, the court grants plaintiff’s request for additional time to respond to 2 defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. In addition, however, due to considerations of 3 judicial economy and the extended time period required for briefing by the parties, the court 4 denies plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment filed on June 10, 2015, without prejudice to its 5 renewal, as appropriate, by plaintiff with his opposition to defendants’ cross-motion for summary 6 judgment. In order to renew the motion, plaintiff shall file only a notice of renewal of the motion 7 for summary judgment. He shall not refile any of the documents he filed with the June 10, 2015 8 motion for summary judgment. If plaintiff files such a notice of renewal, the parties’ cross- 9 motions for summary judgment will be submitted for findings and recommendations following 10 the filing of defendants’ reply, if any, in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment. 11 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. Plaintiff’s February 16, 2016 motion for extension of time (Doc. No. 42) is granted; 13 2. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition 14 15 to defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment; and 3. Plaintiff’s June 10, 2015 motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 30) is denied 16 without prejudice to its renewal with the filing of plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ cross- 17 motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff shall renew his motion for summary judgment merely by 18 filing with his opposition a notice of motion for summary judgment. Thereafter plaintiff’s 19 renewed motion for summary judgment will be submitted for findings and recommendations on 20 all the papers on file following the filing of defendants’ reply in support of their cross-motion for 21 summary judgment. 22 Dated: February 24, 2016 23 24 shah0454.36opp 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
