(PC) Felix v. Clendenin ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT EMERSON FELIX, Case No. 1:19-cv-01784-AWI-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 13 v. FILE A REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS 14 CLENDENIN, et al., NUNC PRO TUNC 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 47) 16 17 Plaintiff Scott Emerson Felix (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare 19 and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning 20 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). 21 As Plaintiff is a civil detainee and has paid the filing fee, he is not a prisoner or 22 proceeding in forma pauperis, and therefore the Court ordered the complaint to be served without 23 screening. (ECF No. 13.) This action therefore proceeds on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed 24 December 23, 2019, (ECF No. 1), against Defendants California Department of State Hospitals 25 (“DSH”), Department of State Hospitals – Coalinga (“DSH – Coalinga”), Stephanie Clendenin, 26 Brandon Price, Francis Hicks, and Matthew Zelt.1 27 1 Following Plaintiff’s failure to identify Defendants John and Jane Does 1–25 employed at DSH or Defendants John and Jane Does 1–25 employed at DSH – Coalinga, the Court issued findings and recommendations to dismiss those 28 defendants from this action, without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (ECF No. 46.) 1 On August 2, 2022, Defendants DSH, DSH – Coalinga, Clendenin, Price, and Hicks 2 (“Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to the 3 motion to dismiss on September 12, 2022. (ECF No. 45.) Defendants’ deadline to file a reply 4 brief was therefore September 26, 2022. 5 On September 22, 2022, Defendants filed an ex parte application for a one-week 6 extension of time, to September 29, 2022, to file a reply brief. (ECF No. 47.) Defendants state 7 that the final draft of Defendants’ reply to Plaintiff’s 149-page opposition has been delayed due to 8 compelling deadlines in other pending matters and additional time is needed for the full review of 9 this reply brief by Defendants. (Id.) 10 On September 29, 2022, Defendants filed a reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss. 11 (ECF No. 48.) 12 Based on the prompt filing of Defendants’ reply brief, the Court will grant the request for 13 extension of time. The Court finds that the brief delay did not cause any prejudice to Plaintiff. 14 Accordingly, Defendants’ ex parte application for extension of time, (ECF No. 47), is 15 HEREBY GRANTED, nunc pro tunc. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is now fully briefed and 16 will be addressed in due course. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: September 30, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Those findings and recommendations are currently pending. Defendant Zelt’s response to the complaint is currently 28 due on or before September 30, 2022. (ECF No. 44.)