Goolsby v. Cate et al

Filing 116

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 115 Motion to Stay Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; ORDER DENYING 115 Motion to Appoint Counsel; ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff an Extension of Time to File Opposition (Thirty Day Deadline), signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/27/2015. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
THOMAS GOOLSBY,
12
13
v.
14
15

J. GENTRY, et al.,

16

Case No. 1:11-cv-01773-LJO-DLB
Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO STAY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Document 115-1)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR COUNSEL
Defendants. (Document 115-2)

17

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF AN
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
OPPOSITION

18
19

Plaintiff Thomas Goolsby (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

20
21

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

22

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds

23

against Defendants Gentry, Noyce, Eubanks, Tyree, Medrano, Holman, Holland and Steadman

24

for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.

25

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment or in the alternative, for an order

26

requiring Plaintiff to post security as a vexatious litigant, on May 15, 2015.

27

///

28
1

1

On May 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request to stay the motion because he has not yet

2

received Defendants’ discovery responses, which were ordered by the Court on April 22, 2015.

3

Plaintiff states that he needs the responses to oppose the motion.

4

Pursuant to the Court’s April 22, 2015, order, Defendants were to serve responses to

5

Plaintiff within thirty days. Thirty days would have been May 22, 2015. Plaintiff signed his

6

motion, however, on May 21, 2015, a day before the responses were due.

7

The Court expects that Defendants have timely served Plaintiff with their responses as of

8

the date of this order. Therefore, the Court will not stay the motion and DENIES his request.

9

However, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff a thirty (30) day extension of time within which to file

10

his opposition.

11

Insofar as Plaintiff requests counsel to review discovery documents, his request is

12

DENIED. Plaintiff asks that counsel be appointed to avoid a security issue, i.e., Defendants can

13

send discovery that may raise safety issues directly to counsel. This does not, however, justify

14

appointment of counsel. Palmer. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Wilborn v.

15

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

May 27, 2015

19

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2