Giraldes v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2:16-cv-2139 KJM DB. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190530a82
Visitors: 4
Filed: May 28, 2019
Latest Update: May 28, 2019
Summary: ORDER DEBORAH BARNES , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on December 21, 2018. (ECF No. 21.) Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file an opposition and a motion to compel. (ECF Nos. 22, 23.) Plaintiff indicated in his filings that he did not have access to certain documents necessary to file his oppositio
Summary: ORDER DEBORAH BARNES , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on December 21, 2018. (ECF No. 21.) Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file an opposition and a motion to compel. (ECF Nos. 22, 23.) Plaintiff indicated in his filings that he did not have access to certain documents necessary to file his opposition..
More
ORDER
DEBORAH BARNES, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on December 21, 2018. (ECF No. 21.) Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file an opposition and a motion to compel. (ECF Nos. 22, 23.) Plaintiff indicated in his filings that he did not have access to certain documents necessary to file his opposition to the pending summary judgment motion. Specifically, plaintiff stated that he needed access to his dental records. The court ordered defendants to indicate whether plaintiff had been provided copies of or access to his dental records. (ECF No. 30.) Defendants indicated that plaintiff had not received copies of his dental records because he had not requested those records, but that he had been provided with other requested medical records. (ECF No. 31.) Defendants also stated that they will provide plaintiff with approximately 200 pages of dental records in their possession. Plaintiff will thus be directed to file an opposition.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment within thirty days of the date that he receives his dental records.
Source: Leagle
