Farhat

(PC) Hearne v. Farhat

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 12, 20232:20-cv-00557California713 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 JOHN HEARNE, No. 2:20-cv-0557 DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER ALEX FARHAT, et al., Defendants. 15 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims he was purposely transferred to a prison where he had documented enemies where he was attacked and injured. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 97) and motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 95). I. Motion for an Extension of Time By order dated December 5, 2022, plaintiff was directed to show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed because he had not responded to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 94.) In response, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time dated December 21, 2022. (ECF No. 97.) Plaintiff sought an extension of time to file an opposition to the summary judgment motion. (Id.) …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.