Crisp v. Wasco State Prison

Filing 46

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 43 and 45 Motions for Stay of Action and to Extend Time to File Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as Unnecessary, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 02/17/2016. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

OBIE LEE CRISP, III,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

v.
WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,
Defendants.

1:13-cv-01899-AWI-SKO (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
FOR STAY OF ACTION AND TO EXTEND
TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AS UNNECESSARY
(Docs. 43, 45)

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
' 1983. On December 28, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment contending
Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies on the issues raised in this action
before he filed suit. (Doc. 34.) That same day, Defendants filed a motion for protective order to
stay this action other than on the issues of exhaustion raised in their motion. (Doc. 35.) On
January 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a ninety-day extension of time to file his
opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion and for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 38.)
On January 13, 2016, three orders issued: (1) granting the ninety-day extension of time
Plaintiff sought to file his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 40); (2)
denying the request for appointment of counsel (Doc. 39); and (3) informing Plaintiff of the

25
26

requirements to adequately oppose Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 41). On
January 14, 2016, Defendants’ motion staying the action other than as related to the issue of

27
exhaustion and their motion for summary judgment was granted. (Doc. 42.)
28
1

On January 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion (Doc. 43) to submit recently discovered

1
2
3
4
5
6

information in support of his January 12, 2016, (Doc. 38), motion for an extension of time to file
his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and for appointment of counsel. On
January 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a further motion for a stay in this action, or alternatively for a
ninety-day extension of time to file his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
(Doc. 45.)
Plaintiff has been previously granted a ninety-day extension of time to file an opposition

7
8
9
10
11

to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and currently has until approximately April 13,
2016, to do so. (See Doc. 40.) It is, therefore, not necessary to grant Plaintiff a further extension
of time for filing his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment at this time. As
that deadline approaches, and if Plaintiff is able to show good cause, a further extension of time
may be granted. The Court notes, however, that Plaintiff’s recent motions are quite detailed and

12
contain a number of his inmate grievances that appear related to the issues raised in this action.
13
It, therefore, appears unlikely that Plaintiff will be able to show good cause to merit further
14
extensions of time. Thus, Plaintiff should examine the documents he attached as exhibits to his
15
most recent motions in light of the information in the Second Informational Order and begin
16

working on his opposition.

17
18
19
20

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to submit recently
discovered information, filed on January 20, 2016, and his motion for stay or for further extension
of time to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on January 25,
2016, are denied as unnecessary.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated:

February 17, 2016

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2