Barno

Barno v. Padilla

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 3, 20223:20-cv-03886California367 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 RODNEY BERNARD BARNO, Case No. 20-cv-03886-SI (pr)

Plaintiff,

ORDER SETTING NEW DEADLINES

v. AND DENYING REQUEST FOR

COUNSEL

ARMANDO PADILLA, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 36, 37 Defendants.

12 Plaintiff has requested a second extension of the deadline to file his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Docket No. 37. Plaintiff asserts that he needs more time to file his opposition to defendants’ motion because he has limited access to the law library, which was closed “due to the holidays (Christmas and New Year[’]s).” Id. at 1. Upon due consideration, the request for a 14-day extension is GRANTED. The court now sets the following new briefing schedule on defendants’ motion for summary judgment: Plaintiff must file and serve his opposition no later than January 21, 2022. Defendants must file and serve their reply, if any, no later than February 4, 2022. No further extensions of these deadlines should be expected. 21…

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.