Reamel v. Harrington et al

Filing 39

ORDER DISCHARGING 37 Order to Show Cause; ORDER GRANTING Extension of Time to File Response; Thirty Day Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 8/21/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

REAMEL CURTIS,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,

1:15-cv-00553-LJO-EPG-PC
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE

vs.
KELLI HARRINGTON, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE RESPONSE
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

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

Curtis Reamel (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On April 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed the
Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1). This case is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment claim for failure to protect against defendants Gonzalez and Burgarin
(“Defendants”). (ECF Nos. 15, 20).
On June 14, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment contending that
judgment should be entered in their favor because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (“No
action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any
other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until
such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted”). Defendant Burgarin moved for

28
1

1

summary judgment on the additional ground that he was not involved in the underlying events

2

giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim.

3

On July 28, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why judgment should

4

not be entered in favor of Defendants for Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the pending motion for

5

summary judgment. (ECF No. 37) .

6

Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause on August 17, 2017 indicating that

7

he could not respond because his institution was on lockdown for 16 days, and he did not have

8

access to the law library. (ECF No. 38). Plaintiff requests a 30-day extension of time to file a

9

response to the pending motion for summary judgment. (Id.)

10
11
12
13
14
15

Based on the forgoing, the Court DISCHARGES the Order to Show Cause and
GRANTS Plaintiff 30-days to file a response to the pending motion for summary judgment.
The response will be due by September 22, 2017 and no further extensions of time will
be granted.
Plaintiff is WARNED that any further failure to act by deadlines will result in dismissal
of his case for failure to prosecute.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 21, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2