Miller v. Rufion, et al

Filing 125

ORDER denying as moot 104 Motion for order regarding law library signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 3/21/2011. (Lundstrom, T)

-WMC (PC) Miller v. Rufion, et al

Doc. 125

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 On October 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting this Court order additional library time in 16 order for him to comply with Court deadlines and prevent prison officials from alleged interference with 17 Plaintiff's legal mail, which he feared might delay communication with the Court. [See Doc. No. 104.] As 18 explained below, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED as moot. 19 On October 28, 2010, one day after Plaintiff filed the instant motion, the Honorable Barry T. 20 Moskowitz issued a briefing schedule setting forth a deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' motion 21 for summary judgment. Plaintiff met the deadline set forth by the Court, submitting a 100-page opposition, 22 without requesting an extension. [See Doc. No. 109, Plaintiff's Opposition to Defs. Motion.] Although 23 Plaintiff appears to have been prospectively concerned about the due date of an opposition to Defendants' 24 motion for summary judgment, his concerns were unfounded as an opposition was received and accepted by 25 the Court in accordance with the deadlines set forth in Judge Moskowitz's October 28, 2010 order. Thus, 26 Plaintiff's request for additional library time in order to timely respond to court deadlines is DENIED as 27 moot. 28 1 GERALD L. MILLER, JR. CDCR #C-92075 Plaintiff, v. O. RUFION; MOONGA, R.N., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 08-1233 BTM (WMc) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER RE: LAW LIBRARY AS MOOT [Doc. No. 104] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

08-1233 BT M (W M c)

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In addition, contrary to Plaintiff's assertions that the Court only received two pages of his motion to compel, the Court received Plaintiff's motion in full. [See Doc. No. 98.] There is no evidence prison officials have interfered with Plaintiff's legal mail or his 17-page motion to compel, which the Court considered and denied as untimely on October 19, 2010. [Doc. No. 100.] Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion requesting order instructing prison officials not to interfere with legal mail is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 21, 2011 Hon. William McCurine, Jr. U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court

2

08-1233 BT M (W M c)