Villescas v. Dotson et al

Filing 61

ORDER Denying 60 Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Record as Unnecessary, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/20/15. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALBERTO VILLESCAS,

12
13
14

15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
M.T. DOTSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-02068-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD AS
UNNECESSARY
[ECF No. 60]

Plaintiff Alberto Villescas is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to the

19

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 34; Local Rule 302.

20

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion entitled “Motion to supplement the record

21

and order,” filed October 19, 2015. Plaintiff references case number 2:15-cv-01861-TLN-KJN

22

(pending in the Sacramento Division of this Court), and submits that exhibits and an inmate appeal

23

dated 10/05/2015 was filed as evidence of retaliatory interference with legal mail by staff. The Court

24

takes judicial notice (Fed. R. Evid. 201) of the record in case number 2:15-cv-01861-TLN-KJN P,

25

Alberto Villescas v. Rafael Miranda, et al., in which Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary

26

restraining order relating to the denial of certain medical treatment and accommodations. (2:15-cv-

27

01861-TLN-KJN P, ECF No. 11.) The Court ordered the Attorney General’s office to respond to

28
1

1

Plaintiff’s motion, and the motion for temporary restraining is still pending before the Court. (Id.,

2

ECF No. 14.)
With regard to the instant case, Plaintiff submits that a copy of an extension of time (served

3
4

September 28, 2015) was not sent out of his institution to be filed in this case. However, Plaintiff is

5

advised that the Court received and filed a motion for extension of time, with a proof of service dated

6

September 28, 2015, on October 2, 2015. (ECF No. 58.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an

7

extension of time on October 5, 2015, and Plaintiff was given thirty (30) additional days to file an

8

opposition to Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 59.) Plaintiff’s

9

opposition is presently due on or before November 4, 2015. Accordingly, because the Court received

10

Plaintiff’s extension of time referenced in his present motion, Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the

11

record is DENIED as unnecessary.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

15

October 20, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2