Ringler

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Edwin D. MeMillan, No. 2:13-cv-00578-KJM-KJN Plaintiff, ORDER v. Ringler, et al., Defendants. 16 17 For the following reasons, having carefully considered the matter, the court grants the defendants’ motion to continue the trial date and denies in part and grants in part the motion for leave to file a motion for summary judgment. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Edwin D. McMillan claims the defendants violated his rights under the First Amendment and California’s Bane Act. See First Am. Compl., ECF No. 18. On December 5, 24 2012, plaintiff submitted an inmate grievance, “alleg[ing] facts that form the basis of his [ ] claims.” MIL No. 5 at 2, ECF No. 181; Finding and Recommendation at 4, ECF No. 41. Plaintiff then filed this case on March 25, 2013, Compl., ECF No. 1, about two months before he 27 received a decision at the final level of his administrative appeal,…