(PC) Cornel Jackson v. Quick et al

Filing 49

ORDER GRANTING Motion for Extension of Time 47 and for Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff's MOTION for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION and for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 33 , 35 , 39 signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 1/7/2021. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CORNEL JACKSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:19-cv-01591-NONE-EPG (PC) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME v. (ECF No. 47) JASON QUICK, et al., 16 ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 17 (ECF Nos. 33, 35, 39) 15 Defendants. 18 Plaintiff Cornel Jackson (“Plaintiff”), a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 19 20 pauperis, proceeds on his second amended complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on 21 August 10, 2020. (ECF No. 25). Pending before the Court are certain defendants’ motion for an 22 extension of time to respond to the second amended complaint. (ECF No. 47). Also pending is 23 Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, (ECF No. 33), 24 which has not yet been opposed. 25 I. 26 BACKGROUND The second amended complaint alleges Defendants, employees at the Madera County Jail, 27 have obstructed Plaintiff’s ability to mount his own defense in his active criminal case. On 28 October 21, 2020, the District Judge adopted the undersigned’s findings and recommendations, 1 1 and ordered that this case proceed against certain defendants for violating Plaintiff’s First and 2 Sixth Amendment rights and for conspiracy to violate such rights. (ECF No. 30). 3 The Court ordered Plaintiff to complete service documents. (ECF No. 31). To complete 4 the service documents, Plaintiff was required to photocopy his second amended complaint at least 5 nine times. (See id. at 3). On November 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief, 6 which stated that he was being denied photocopy access and was unable to complete the service 7 documents. (ECF No. 33). His motion included copies of his grievances requesting photocopy 8 access and denials by Madera County Jail staff. The Court ordered the clerk to make the relevant 9 photocopies for Plaintiff as a one-time courtesy. (ECF No. 34). 10 Plaintiff subsequently filed several additional declarations that concern his ability to 11 access the courts. (ECF Nos. 35, 39). Document 35 includes a declaration from Plaintiff that he 12 has been unable to obtain photocopier access for his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 13 Document 39 is a signed declaration that states, among other things, that letters from the ACLU 14 were opened outside of Plaintiff’s presence. On January 5, 2021, Defendants Alvarez, Followell,1 Lopez, Marley, Quick, Ramos and 15 16 Rossette ( “Appearing Defendants”)2 filed a motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s 17 second amended complaint, stating that they needed an additional 60 days so that they can obtain 18 access to Plaintiff’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which may render some of Plaintiff’s 19 claims subject to res judicata. (ECF Nos. 47, 48).3 20 II. ANALYSIS Appearing Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time 21 A. 22 Appearing Defendants request an extension of time, arguing that Plaintiff’s separate 23 petition for a writ of habeas corpus may render some of his current claims subject to res judicata. 24 1 25 26 27 28 Spelled “Followill” in the motion. The United States Marshal was unable to complete service as to Defendant Kasandra Sanchez. (ECF No. 45) (summons returned unexecuted; “Sanchez no longer employee and Madera Co. will not accept service. No alternate address known.”) 3 Appearing Defendants neither filed nor emailed to chambers a proposed order with respect to the motion for an extension of time. Counsel is reminded that Eastern District of California Local Rules require proposed orders in such situations. See Local Rule 137(c) (“If filing a document requires leave of court, such as an amended complaint after the time to amend as a matter of course has expired, counsel shall attach the document proposed to be filed as an exhibit to moving papers seeking such leave and lodge a proposed order as required by these Rules.”). 2 2 1 (ECF No. 47). They state that they are not able to obtain a copy of the petition at this time but 2 believe a sixty-day extension will suffice. Defendants have shown good cause for an extension. 3 Therefore, the Court will grant their requested 60-day extension of time. Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief 4 B. 5 With respect to Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 33), the Court will order Appearing 6 Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s motion, including supporting declarations. 7 III. CONCLUSION 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. Appearing Defendants’ motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 47) is GRANTED; 10 2. Appearing Defendants shall respond to the Second Amended Complaint no later than 11 12 March 15, 2021; and 3. Appearing Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF 13 No. 33) and declarations (ECF Nos. 35, 39) within twenty-one days. 14 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 7, 2021 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?