Lamon v. Adams et al

Filing 164

ORDER DENY Plaintiff's 162 Motion for Protective Order; Clerk's Office to Send Plaintiff a Copy of the Docket and the Order at Doc. 159 in This Case, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 5/2/2012. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BARRY LOUIS LAMON,

12
13

Plaintiff,

1:09-cv-205 LJO SMS (PC)
ORDER DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

vs.
(Doc. 162)

14

DERRAL ADAMS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

CLERK’S OFFICE TO SEND PLAINTIFF
A COPY OF THE DOCKET AND THE
ORDER AT DOC. 159 IN THIS CASE

________________________________/
17
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
18
1983. On May 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking issuance of a protective order insulating
19
him from any sanctions that might attach if he is unable to timely respond to orders issued by
20
this court, or to documents served on him by Defendants. (Doc. 162.) The basis for Plaintiff’s
21
request is that he has recently been transferred between several prisons and his receipt of mail is
22
delayed with each transfer such that he is not always aware of, nor able to engage in, action that
23
he must take in a timely manner. (Id.)
24
However, while an anticipated lapse of a deadline due to delay in Plaintiff’s receipt of
25
mail or personal effects is good cause to grant an extension of time for action, even on a nunc
26
pro tunc basis, it is not good cause to provide blanket protection to a party from any and all
27
sanctionable action, or inaction, in any given case. Further, Plaintiff’s motion is premature in
28

1

as much as the Court is unaware of any sanctionable event with which a deadline has lapsed

2

with which Plaintiff has failed to comply. If Plaintiff is unable to meet a deadline in this action

3

for which some form of sanction would apply, Plaintiff may file appropriate documents seeking

4

relief which will be individually considered. Extensions of time are regularly granted upon

5

showing of good cause.

6

Further, Plaintiff indicates that he has not received any orders issued in this case since

7

his March 8, 2012 transfer. It is thus appropriate to provide him with a copy of the order, Doc.

8

159, which granted his request for an extension of time to respond to Defendants’ discovery.

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order is

10

denied, without prejudice, as premature. Further, the Clerk’s Office is ordered to serve Plaintiff

11

with a copy of the docket in this case and a copy of the order which issued April 11, 2012,

12

granting Plaintiff’s first motion for an extension of time to file responses to discovery nunc pro

13

tunc (Doc. 159) along with this order.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:
icido3

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

May 2, 2012

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE