Wright v. Clark et al

Filing 121

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff Thirty (30) Days in Which to File Opposition to 111 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/22/2012. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

RAYMOND WRIGHT,

10
11
12
13

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00462-AWI-BAM PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF THIRTY
DAYS IN WHICH TO FILE OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.
SCOTT KEBNAN, et al.,

(ECF No. 111)

Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Raymond Wright (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the

17

first amended complaint, filed March 27, 2008, against Defendants Lefler, Figueroa, Gonzalez,

18

Hernandez and Rivera for interference with Plaintiff’s right of access to the courts; Defendants

19

Lefler, Gonzalez, Rivera, Desbit, Lima, Peterson, Pearce, Baires, Pennington, Grannis, and Kernan

20

for retaliation; and Defendants Lefler, Orozco and Miller for violations of the Equal Protection

21

Clause. After receiving an extension of time, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on

22

March 7, 2012. (ECF No. 111.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on April 9, 2012, and Defendants filed

23

a reply on April 16, 2012. (ECF Nos. 114,116.)

24

Plaintiff opposes the motion for summary judgment on the ground that, pursuant to the mail

25

box rule, it was not filed until March 8, 2012, the date that it was placed in the mail. Therefore,

26

Plaintiff argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Defendants’ motion for summary

27

judgment. (Opp. 1, ECF No. 114.) The mailbox rule applies to conventional filings of the parties.

28

In this instance, Defendants filed the motion for summary judgment electronically. According to the
1

1

Local Rules, all attorneys are required to file documents using CM/ECF and the date of filing is the

2

date the document is filed in CM/ECF. Local Rules 133, 134. Defendants’ motion was timely filed.

3

To the extent that the documents were served on Plaintiff the following day, the Court finds that

4

there is no prejudice to Plaintiff by the failure to serve the documents until one day late. The Court

5

shall consider Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

6

Plaintiff only opposed the motion for summary judgment based upon timeliness. Since the

7

Court finds that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was timely filed, Plaintiff shall be

8

granted thirty days in which to file an opposition addressing the merits of the motion for summary

9

judgments.

10

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall be granted thirty days

11

from the date of service of this order in which to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for

12

summary judgment.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
cm411

October 22, 2012

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2