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)
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?