Glass v. Woodford et al

Filing 98

ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's 79 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 04/25/2012. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 10 11 12 DONALD GLASS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) J. S. WOODFORD, et. al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) 1:09-cv-0098-AWI-BAM-PC ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Document #79) 13 14 15 16 BACKGROUND Plaintiff Donald Glass is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 On July 25, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. 18 On August 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for a continuance of the motion for 19 summary judgment to allow Plaintiff additional time in which to conduct discovery. On September 20 7, 2011, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance and directed Plaintiff to file an 21 opposition within sixty days. 22 On November 9, 2011,1 Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file an opposition 23 to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff asked for sixty additional days in which to file an 24 opposition. On November 10, 2011, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff thirty additional days to 25 26 1 27 The proof of service on this document is dated November 2, 2011, and the document is deemed filed as of this date pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule. The court refers to the court’s date of actual filing for consistency and because these are the dates reflected in the court’s document. 28 1 1 2 file an opposition. On December 16, 2011,2 Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s November 3 10, 2011 order. Plaintiff states that additional time is needed because prison officials have 4 Plaintiff’s legal materials concerning this case and Plaintiff does not have access to them. In this 5 motion, Plaintiff asks for sixty additional days to file his opposition. 6 7 On February 23, 2012,3 Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. On March 2, 2012, Defendants filed a reply brief addressing the opposition. 8 9 ORDER Plaintiff has provided evidence that he needed additional time to file an opposition because 10 he did not have his legal documents. Plaintiff has now filed his opposition. 11 justice, the court will grant Plaintiff’s motion. 12 In the interests of Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is granted and the court will consider 13 Plaintiff’s opposition brief. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: 0m8i78 April 25, 2012 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 The proof of service on this document is dated December 10, 2011. 27 3 The proof of service on this document is dated February 12, 2012. 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?