Opinion
1:08-cv-01113-LJO-GSA-PC
12-01-2015
SERGIO ALEJANDRO GAMEZ, Plaintiff, v. F. GONZALEZ, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE AS MOOT
(ECF No. 204.) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF DOCUMENTS
(ECF. No. 205.)
I. BACKGROUND
Sergio Alejandro Gamez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on August 1, 2008. (Doc. 1.)
This action now proceeds with the Fourth Amended Complaint filed on November 8, 2013, against defendants K. Holland (Warden, CCI), F. Gonzalez (Former Warden, CCI), J. Tyree (IGI, CCI), J. Gentry (Former IGI, CCI), G. Adame (Assistant IGI, CCI), and G. Jakabosky (SSU Special Agent) for due process violations, and retaliation against Plaintiff in violation of the First Amendment. (Doc. 147.)
On November 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of the deadline to file dispositive motions, and a motion for leave to file a request for judicial notice. (ECF Nos. 204, 205.)
II. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Plaintiff requests an extension of time until January 30, 2016 for the parties to file dispositive motions. In light of the fact that on November 25, 2015, the Court extended the deadline for the parties to file motions for summary judgment until February 8, 2016, Plaintiff's motion for extension of time is moot and shall be denied as such.
III. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Plaintiff requests leave to file a request for judicial notice of additional documents in support of his case, in the event that Defendants file documents for in camera review in response to the Court's order issued on November 9, 2015. Plaintiff expresses concern that he will not know which documents are submitted for in camera review, leaving him at a disadvantage.
On November 9, 2015, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff's motion to compel, requiring Defendants to provide documents to Plaintiff or submit documents for in camera review, within thirty days. (ECF No. 201.) --------
At the status conference held on November 20, 2015 for this action, the Court ordered defense counsel to submit the documents to the Court for in camera review, after which the Court will release all documents to Plaintiff to which he is entitled. (ECF No. 206.) In light of this order, Plaintiff's request for leave to file a request for judicial notice shall be denied.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time is DENIED as moot; and
2. Plaintiff's request for leave to file a request for judicial notice is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated December 1 , 2015
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE