(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)

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