Fields v. Patterson et al

Filing 104

ORDER Granting Motions for Extension of Time Nunc Pro Tunc, re 86 , 88 , 89 , signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 2/5/16. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14

1:10-cv-01700-LJO-EPG-PC

KEVIN E. FIELDS,
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME NUNC PRO TUNC
(ECF Nos. 86, 88, 89.)

vs.
P. PATTERSON, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

17

' 1983. On December 2, 2015 and January 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed motions for extension of

18

time to file oppositions to Defendant Patterson’s motion for summary judgment and motion for

19

an order requiring security from a vexatious litigant.1 (ECF Nos. 86, 88, 89.) Plaintiff requests

20

extensions of time based on his assertions that he lacks access to his legal property and

21

sufficient paper, envelopes, postage, and ink.

22

On January 6, 2016, the Court issued an order for Defendant Patterson (“Defendant”) to

23

file a response to Plaintiff’s motions for extension of time within twenty days, addressing the

24

length of the expected extensions of time and Plaintiff’s reasons for the extensions. (ECF No.

25

90.) In its order, the Court noted that Plaintiff’s January 4, 2016 motions were his fifth motions

26
27
28

1

On August 7, 2015, Defendant Patterson filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 67.)
On August 13, 2015, Defendant Patterson filed a motion for an order requiring security from vexatious litigant.
(ECF No. 68.)
1

1

for extension of time to file his oppositions. (Id.) On January 27, 2016, Defendant filed an

2

opposition to Plaintiff’s motions for extension of time, arguing that Plaintiff’s assertions that he

3

lacks access to his legal property and supplies are false. (ECF No. 98.) Defendant provides

4

evidence that Plaintiff was separated from his legal materials for, at most, one day; that

5

Plaintiff acknowledged receiving his property, including his legal paperwork and books, on

6

December 30, 2015; and that Plaintiff’s prison records demonstrate he has had access to writing

7

supplies, and paper.

8

opposition to the extensions of time.

9

oppositions to Defendant’s motions for summary judgment and motion for an order requiring

10

(Kimbrell Decl. Ex. B.)

Plaintiff has not replied to Defendant’s

However, on January 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed his

security. (ECF Nos. 91, 96.)

11

At this juncture, in the interest of moving this case forward, the Court finds good cause

12

to grant Plaintiff’s motions for extension of time nunc pro tunc. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY

13

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for extension of time filed on December 2, 2015 and

14

January 4, 2016, are granted nunc pro tunc, deeming Plaintiff’s oppositions of January 25, 2016

15

timely filed.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 5, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
2