Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Morris v. Bradford, 2:11-cv-1171 TLN DB P. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180928b54 Visitors: 7
Filed: Sep. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 27, 2018
Summary: ORDER DEBORAH BARNES , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff alleges defendants retaliated against him in violation of his First Amendment rights by denying him medication and access to the law library. Before the court are plaintiff's motions: (1) for an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment, and (2) for copies of documents. For the reasons set forth below,
More

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges defendants retaliated against him in violation of his First Amendment rights by denying him medication and access to the law library. Before the court are plaintiff's motions: (1) for an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment, and (2) for copies of documents. For the reasons set forth below, the court will grant plaintiff a limited extension of time and will deny his motion for copies.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action in 2011. The case is proceeding on his first amended complaint filed September 15, 2011. (ECF No. 12.) After the court denied defendants' motion to revoke plaintiff's in forma pauperis status and motion to dismiss, and denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the merits of plaintiff's remaining two claims on January 14, 2016. (ECF No. 70.)

Plaintiff received numerous extensions of time to file an opposition to defendants' motion. On February 14, 2017, the court stayed these proceedings because plaintiff had been temporarily transferred to a psychiatric program and did not have access to his legal materials. (ECF Nos. 86, 87.) When plaintiff was released from that program, he sought possession of his legal materials. While most had been returned to him by March 2018, plaintiff was still missing his materials from this proceeding. (See ECF No. 98 at 1-2.) The court then ordered defendants to provide copies of documents identified by plaintiff as necessary to permit him to continue with this action. (ECF No. 94.) In April 2018, defendants provided plaintiff with those copies. (ECF No. 97.)

On August 27, 2018, the stay of these proceedings was lifted and plaintiff was ordered to file an opposition to defendants' summary judgment motion within thirty days. (ECF No. 99.) On September 24, plaintiff filed the two pending motions. (ECF No. 100.)

PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file an opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 100.) Plaintiff explains that he has a serious mental illness that requires psychotropic medications. Those medications frequently cause him to be incapacitated and he has been hospitalized recently. In addition, plaintiff asks the court to order defendants to provide him with copies of all documents filed in this matter because his legal documents "were supposedly lost by the defendant's co-horts while plaintiff was sent to a higher level of care" from August 2016 to January 2017 and from February 2017 to March 2017.

With respect to the motion for an extension of time, the court notes that plaintiff has had his legal materials for this case since defendants provided them to him in April, over five months ago. He has had more than enough time to prepare an opposition to the summary judgment motion. However, the court also recognizes that plaintiff has been hospitalized and takes medications that cause him to be unable to do his legal work. Therefore, the court finds good cause for a 30-day extension of time.

With respect to plaintiff's motion for copies of all documents in this case, plaintiff does not explain why he does not have those documents. Defendants filed a statement in April that they had provided plaintiff with copies of the fourteen documents identified by the court and by plaintiff. Plaintiff never informed the court that he did not receive those documents. Nor did plaintiff file objections to the court's recommendation that the stay of these proceedings be lifted because plaintiff had possession of his legal documents from this case.

Plaintiff's motion for copies will be denied. If plaintiff wishes to obtain copies of documents in this case, he may contact the Clerk's Office. That office will provide copies of documents and of the docket sheet at $0.50 per page. Checks in the exact amount are made payable to "Clerk, USDC." Copies of documents in cases may also be obtained by printing from the public terminals at the Clerk's Office or by contacting Cal Legal Support Group at: 3104 "O" Street, Suite 291, Sacramento, CA 95816, phone 916-441-4396, fax 916-400-4948.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 100) is granted in part.

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this order in which to file an opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Any reply shall be filed and served in accordance with Local Rule 230(l).

3. Plaintiff's motion for copies of documents (ECF No. 100) is denied.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer