FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DEBORAH BARNES, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 14, 2016 defendants moved for summary judgment. (ECF No. 70.) Plaintiff received multiple extensions of time to file an opposition. (See Orders dated Feb. 12, April 21, and Nov. 1, 2016 (ECF Nos. 73, 74, 82).) On July 13, 2016, plaintiff sought a temporary stay of these proceedings. (ECF No. 76.) On November 1, 2016, the court denied that request and informed plaintiff that he had thirty days to file an opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 82.)

On November 18, 2016, plaintiff filed a "declaration" in which he explains that he has been temporarily transferred to the psychiatric program at Salinas Valley State Prison and was not permitted to bring any of his legal property with him. Plaintiff states that he will not have access to his legal property until he returns to California State Prison-Sacramento ("CSP-Sacramento"). (ECF No. 83.) Plaintiff does not know how long he will be incarcerated at Salinas Valley. (Id. at 2.)

When the court considered plaintiff's prior motion for a stay, plaintiff had not been transferred to Salinas Valley and the court was unaware that plaintiff would not be permitted access to his legal materials if he was. Based on this new information, the undersigned construed plaintiff's November 18, 2016 filing as a motion for reconsideration and ordered defendants to respond. (ECF No. 84.) Defendants filed a response in which they confirm that plaintiff has been transferred to the psychiatric program at Salinas Valley State Prison due to mental health issues and that as a result of the transfer, plaintiff no longer has access to his legal paperwork because it is still at CSP-Sacramento. (ECF No. 85.) Defendants agree that a temporary stay is appropriate until plaintiff is returned to CSP-Sacramento and has access to his legal paperwork.

Accordingly, and good cause appearing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).