Williams v. Cate, et al.

Filing 83

ORDER RE: Defendants' Requests for Re-Service of Pending Motions and an Extension of Time to File a Response signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/30/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALLEN B. WILLIAMS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

Case No. 1:09-cv-00468 OWW JLT (PC)
ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ REQUESTS
FOR RE-SERVICE OF PENDING MOTIONS
AND AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A
RESPONSE

v.

14

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

(Doc. 82.)
16

/

17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed a “renewed” motion to compel discovery

19

and a motion to reinstate dismissed claims. (Doc. 75.) On May 25, 2011, Defendants filed a request for

20

Plaintiff to re-serve his motions because several documents referenced therein were not attached to the

21

motions. (Doc. 78.) By order filed May 27, 2011, the Court denied Defendants’ request. (Doc. 79.)

22

The Court explained that the missing documents appeared to have been sent to and filed by the Court

23

under docket number 77. (Doc. 79 at 1.) Thus, in the interest of preserving resources, the Court did not

24

require Plaintiff to re-serve his motions but instead referred the Defendants to docket number 77. (Id.)

25

However, the Court noted that Defendants could renew their request for re-service if they found that

26

docket number 77 did not contain all the documents referenced by Plaintiff in his motions. (Id.)

27

On June 27, 2011, Defendants renewed their request for re-service. (Doc. 82.) Defendants

28

explain that while the vast majority of the missing documents can be found in docket number 77, a few
1

1

do still appear to be missing. (Id. at 2-3.) In particular, Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s declaration is

2

missing, as well as a memorandum dated April 21, 2008, a memorandum dated April 7, 2009, and a

3

memorandum dated July 16, 2009. (Id. at 3.)

4

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1.

Defendants’ June 27, 2011 request for re-service and an extension of time to file a

6

response to Plaintiff’s motions (Doc. 82) is GRANTED as follows:

7

a.

Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall

8

file: (1) his declaration in support of his motion to “reactive lawsuit against . . .

9

Defendants previously dismissed from [the] case”; and (2) copies of the three

10

memorandums regarding Defendant Wegman that are cited by Plaintiff in his

11

pending motions.

12

b.

13
14
15

Within thirty (30) days of Plaintiff filing the above listed documents, Defendants
shall file their opposition to the pending motions.

2.

Plaintiff is cautioned that his failure to comply with this order could result in sanctions
including, but not limited to, the denial of the pending motions. See Local Rule 110.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: June 30, 2011
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2