Thomas v. Wilber et al

Filing 59

ORDER Granting Motion To Modify Scheduling Order And Granting Plaintiff's Property Access Request (Docs. 57 and 58 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 2/15/2013. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

JASON LATRELL THOMAS,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00006-AWI-SKO PC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO MODIFY
SCHEDULING ORDER AND GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY ACCESS
REQUEST

v.
M. WILBER, et al.,

(Docs. 57 and 58)
12

Defendants.
Amended Pretrial Dispositive
Motion Deadline:

13

05/20/2013

/
14
15

Plaintiff Jason Latrell Thomas, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

16

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 4, 2010. Pursuant to the amended

17

scheduling order filed on August 13, 2012, the deadline for filing pretrial dispositive motions is

18

February 19, 2013. On January 22, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to modify the scheduling order

19

to extend the pretrial dispositive motion deadline to May 20, 2013, based on the enormous

20

administrative burden now facing California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation staff

21

following the recent passage of Proposition 36. (Doc. 57, Motion, Chinn Dec.) As a result of the

22

need to shift staff resources to responding to requests by inmates for prison records needed to support

23

their petitions for new, reduced sentences, Defendants’ counsel has been unable to obtain the

24

documents necessary to prepare a motion for summary judgment. (Id.) The significant delay in

25

responding to non-Proposition 36 requests for records is projected to last at least through March

26

2013. (Id.)

27

///

28

///
1

1

In addition, on February 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order requesting the

2

Attorney General’s Office call California State Prison-Sacramento and assist in facilitating the

3

release of Plaintiff’s legal property. (Doc. 58.)

4

Defendants have shown good cause for the requested extension of the motion deadline, and

5

Plaintiff is in need of additional time as well. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Zivkovic v. Southern

6

California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). Therefore, the motion deadline shall

7

be extended.

8

With respect to Plaintiff’s request, he states that he was released from the infirmary in

9

December 2012, and he has been unable to regain access to his property, which includes his legal

10

material.1 Plaintiff’s motion is granted in that Defendants’ counsel is requested to contact the

11

Litigation Coordinator at CSP-Sacramento and find out when Plaintiff will be provided with his legal

12

material. Counsel is requested to inform Plaintiff of the status of his property, via letter or otherwise.

13

If Plaintiff needs further assistance following receipt of that information, he may file another

14

motion. However, Plaintiff is informed that the Court’s ability to intervene is limited, see Zepeda

15

v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (a federal court may not

16

attempt to determine rights of persons not before the court), and determinations regarding what is

17

necessary to maintain the safety and security of an institution rest within the sound discretion of

18

prison officials, see e.g., Noble v. Adams, 636 F.3d 525, 529 (9th Cir. 2011) (prison officials entitled

19

to wide-ranging deference), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1035 (2012); Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d

20

969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (prison officials entitled to deference in day-to-day prison operations).

21

Nevertheless, Plaintiff has a protected right to litigate his court cases and the Court

22

anticipates that prison officials will ensure that Plaintiff has access to his legal material. Silva v. Di

23

Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2011). The extension of the motion deadline will also

24

allow Plaintiff ample additional time to recover his property and undertake any necessary review and

25

preparation.

26

///

27
1

28

It is unclear if Plaintiff’s request for his legal property is also being affected by the delay caused by
Proposition 36.

2

1

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

Defendants’ motion for an extension of the pretrial dispositive motion deadline, filed

3

on January 22, 2013, is GRANTED and the deadline is extended to May 20, 2013;

4

and

5

2.

Plaintiff’s motion regarding access to his legal material, filed on February 6, 2013,

6

is GRANTED in that Defendants’ counsel is requested to contact the Litigation

7

Coordinator at CSP-Sacramento, find out when Plaintiff will be provided with his

8

legal material, and notify Plaintiff of the status of his legal property.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated:
i0d3h8

February 15, 2013

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3