Baker v. Beam et al

Filing 57

ORDER Regarding 56 Plaintiff's Notice of Withdrawal of Motion for Court to Order CDCR to Return Plaintiff's Legal Property; ORDER Directing Clerk's Office to Terminate 50 Plaintiff's Motion for Court to Order CDCR to Return Pl aintiff's Legal Property; ORDER Granting 54 & 55 Plaintiff's Motions for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Protective Order signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/11/2020. Oppositions due within 30 days. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01737-AWI-BAM (PC)

MIKE BAKER,
Plaintiff,

13

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO
TERMINATE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
COURT TO ORDER CDCR TO RETURN
PLAINTIFF’S LEGAL PROPERTY
(ECF No. 50)

v.

14

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION
FOR COURT TO ORDER CDCR TO
RETURN PLAINTIFF’S LEGAL
PROPERTY
(ECF No. 56)

Defendants.

12

E. BEAM, et al.,

15
16
17
18

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
(ECF Nos. 54, 55)

19
20
21

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

22
23
24

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

25

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds on Plaintiff’s second

26

amended complaint as follows: (1) against Defendants Vogel, Caldwell, and Cervantes for

27

deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (2) against Defendants Vasquez,

28

Vogel, Beam, Cuevas, Caldwell, Cervantes, Huerta, Benevidas, Goree, Cribbs, Diaz, Jarvis, and
1

1

Pacillas for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; (3) against Defendants Vasquez,

2

Vogel, Beam, Cuevas, Caldwell, Cervantes, Huerta, and Benevidas for conspiracy; (4) against

3

Defendants Vogel, Beam, Cuevas, Caldwell, Cervantes, Huerta, and Benevidas for denial of

4

access to the courts in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments; (5) against Defendants

5

Vogel, Beam, Cuevas, Caldwell, Cervantes, Huerta, and Benevidas for a state law claim for

6

property deprivation under California law; (6) against Defendants Beam, Huerta, and Benevidas

7

for violation of California Civil Code § 52.1; (7) against Defendant Vogel for a state law claim

8

for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (8) against Defendants Vogel, Caldwell, and

9

Cervantes for a state law claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. (ECF No. 33.)

10

Currently before the Court are several motions and filings, which require resolution, as

11

explained below.

12

I.

Plaintiff’s Notice of Withdrawal of Motion for Court to Order CDCR to Return

13

Plaintiff’s Legal Property

14

On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for court to order CDCR to return Plaintiff’s

15

legal property. (ECF No. 50.) Specifically, Plaintiff requested that the Court order CDCR to

16

transfer Plaintiff’s legal property from Mule Creek State Prison, the prison where he was

17

previously housed, to California State Prison, Corcoran, the prison where he is currently housed.

18

(Id.)

19

However, on March 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice to withdraw his January 14, 2020

20

motion for the Court to order CDCR to return his legal property. (ECF No. 56.) Plaintiff states

21

that, since he was issued the legal property necessary for this action on or about February 13,

22

2020, his motion for an order compelling CDCR to return his legal property has become moot.

23

(Id.)

24

While Defendants have not had an opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s notice of

25

withdrawal, no response is necessary because Defendants are not prejudiced by the withdrawal of

26

Plaintiff’s motion.

27
28

Therefore, Plaintiff’s January 14, 2020 motion for the Court to order CDCR to return
Plaintiff’s legal property is withdrawn as moot.
2

1

II.

2

Plaintiff’s Two Motions for Extension of Time to File Opposition
On February 13, 2020, Defendants Beam, Benevidas, Caldwell, Cervantes, Cribbs,

3

Cuevas, Diaz, Goree, Huerta, Jarvis, Pacillas, Vasquez, and Vogel filed a motion for summary

4

judgment and a motion for protective order. (ECF Nos. 52, 53.)

5

On March 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file an opposition to

6

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and a motion for extension of time to file an

7

opposition to Defendants’ motion for protective order. (ECF Nos. 54, 55.) Plaintiff asserts that

8

he needs additional time to file oppositions to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and

9

motion for protective order because he just recently received the legal property that he was

10

without for approximately four months and because he has been unable to complete the discovery

11

that he believes is necessary to file an opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion. (Id.)

12

Having considered the request, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause

13

for a 30-day extension of time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions for an

14

extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and

15

Defendants’ motion for protective order, (ECF Nos. 54, 55.), are granted.

16

III.

Order

17

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1.

19

Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to order CDCR to return Plaintiff’s legal property,
(ECF No. 50), is WITHDRAWN;

20

2.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 50;

21

3.

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file opposition to Defendants’ motion

22

for summary judgment, (ECF No. 54), is GRANTED;

23

4.

24

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file opposition to Defendants’ motion
for protective order, (ECF No. 55), is GRANTED; and

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
3

1

5.

Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an

2

opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 52), and an

3

opposition to Defendants’ motion for protective order, (ECF No. 53).

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

March 11, 2020

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4