Hudson v. Brian et al

Filing 52

ORDER denying 50 Motion for Extension of time signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/13/2011. ( Plaintiff's Filing Deadline for pretrial statement 8/1/2011; Defendants Filing Deadline 8/14/2011).(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL HUDSON,

12
13

Case No. 1:08-cv-00249 AWI JLT (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN
EXTENSION OF TIME

vs.
(Doc. 50)

14

TERRY BRIAN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

/

17

On July 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file his pretrial statement in

18

this case.1 (Doc. 50.) Plaintiff explains that he needs thirty additional days to file his pretrial statement

19

because he is currently housed in the Security Housing Unit and is unable to access the law library. (Id.

20

at 2.) Plaintiff, however, fails to explain why law library access is necessary for him to file a pretrial

21

statement. Notably, the Court has already provided Plaintiff with Local Rule 281, which outlines the

22

contents of a proper pretrial statement. Moreover, the Court has provided Plaintiff the legal standards

23

governing his First Amendment retaliation claims in its July 17, 2009 screening order (Doc. 10) and,

24

more recently, in its March 31, 2011 findings and recommendations denying Defendants’ motion for

25

summary judgment (Doc. 42). It is therefore unclear what benefit Plaintiff thinks there is to be had for

26

him to have access to the prison law library.

27
1

28

Under the Court’s scheduling order, the deadline for Plaintiff’s pretrial statement is set for July 18, 2011. (Doc.
44.) This afforded Plaintiff approximately sixty days between the issuance of the Court’s scheduling order and Plaintiff’s
deadline for filing a pretrial statement.

1

1

Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause to warrant a thirty-day extension of time, his

2

request for such will be denied. Nevertheless, the Court will afford Plaintiff a limited extension of time

3

so that he may still file a timely pretrial statement in this case.

4

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1.

Plaintiff’s July 8, 2011 motion for a thirty-day extension of time (Doc. 50) is DENIED;

6

2.

Plaintiff shall file a pretrial statement on or by August 1, 2011; and

7

3.

Defendants shall serve and file their pretrial statement on or by August 14, 2011.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated: July 13, 2011
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2