Windham v. Marin et al

Filing 53

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 52 Motion Order Requiring Defendants' Counsel to Re-Serve Documents, for a Stay of Proceedings and for an Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 09/17/2015. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

CHARLES W. WINDHAM,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.
M. MARIN, et al.,

13
14
15
16
17

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:14-cv-01636-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING
DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO RE-SERVE
DOCUMENTS, FOR A STAY OF
PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR AN
EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 52)

Plaintiff Charles W. Windham (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this

18

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth

19

Amendment claims of excessive force against Defendants M. Marin, D. Uribe, W. Rasley, J.

20

Contreras, A. Capano, R. Rubio, and Doe #1, and for deliberate indifference to serious medical

21

needs against Defendants C. Navarro, V. Morales, M. Marin, and S. Shiver.

22

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing Defendants to re-

23

serve documents on him, and requesting a stay of proceedings, and an extension of time to file a

24

response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 52). In his motion, Plaintiff

25

explains that Defendants sent him a double-sided copy of their motion for summary judgment

26

dated September 2, 2015, and supporting documents. He states that he prefers a single-sided

27

copy because the prison staff opened and mixed-up his legal mail, and the double-sided copies

28

are confusing to sort through and re-organize. (Id. at 2.) As a result, he asks the Court to direct
1

1

Defendants’ counsel to send him a single-sided copy of the motion for summary judgment and

2

supporting documents. Plaintiff also requests a stay of proceedings until he is re-served with

3

those documents, and an extension of time to respond to the motion for summary judgment

4

pending his receipt of the re-served documents. (Id. at 3.)

5

At this time, the Court does not find it appropriate to order Defendant to re-serve a

6

duplicate, but single-sided, copy of its filings on Plaintiff. Although he has had to spend some

7

time re-organizing them, he confirms that he has received Defendants’ filings. To the extent

8

Defendants are able to send single-sided documents to Plaintiff in the future, they are encouraged

9

to do so, but the Court will not require it absent a showing that doing so is necessary. Plaintiff

10

has not shown such a need at this time. As a result, the Court will also not grant Plaintiff’s

11

request for a stay in the proceedings or extension of time to respond that was contingent on

12

Plaintiff’s request to be re-served with the Defendants’ filings.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

Plaintiff’s motion for an order requiring Defendants’ counsel to re-serve filings, and

15

requesting a stay and extension of time to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment,

16

is denied.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

September 17, 2015

20

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2