Lal v. Felker et al

Filing 218

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/17/13 ordering plaintiff's request for an extension of time 202 is denied as moot. Defendants' request for leave to file a second dispositive motion concerning plaintiff's ret aliation claims 203 is granted. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time 212 is granted in that his response to the motion for summary judgment shall be filed within 60 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff's request for a court order authorizing copies in excess of 50 pages 212 is denied. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AZHAR LAL,

12

No. 2:07-cv-2060-KJM-EFB P
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

FELKER, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Several miscellaneous motions are pending before the court.
First, plaintiff requests an extension of time to file objections to the August 16, 2013

20

findings and recommendations. ECF No. 202. Plaintiff’s objections were received by the court

21

on September 16, 2013, and were considered by the district judge on September 30, 2013. ECF

22

Nos. 199, 200. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for an extension of time must be denied as moot.

23

Second, defendants request leave to file a second dispositive motion concerning plaintiff’s

24

retaliation claims, and have concurrently filed a second dispositive motion. ECF Nos. 203, 204.

25

Plaintiff does not oppose defendants’ request for leave to file a second dispositive motion, but

26

does seek additional time within which to prepare an opposition. ECF No. 212. Good cause

27

appearing, defendants’ request for leave to file a second dispositive motion will be granted. In

28

addition, plaintiff shall have 60 days from the date of this order to file his response.
1

1

Plaintiff also requests a court order directing the librarian to allow him make copies in

2

excess of 50 pages. ECF No. 212. After making that request, plaintiff filed a document with the

3

court that was 72 pages in length. See ECF No. 213. Thus, a court order does not appear to be

4

necessary at this time and plaintiff’s request will be denied. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must

5

comply with applicable prison procedures for obtaining copies needed for this litigation. The

6

court also notes, the volume of exhibits submitted with defendants’ motion should not be a barrier

7

to plaintiff’s ability to file an opposition brief (including exhibits), that does not exceed 50 pages

8

in length. Plaintiff need not reproduce copies of defendants’ exhibits with his opposition. Rather,

9

plaintiff may rely on any previously submitted exhibits so long as he adequately cites to where

10

those exhibits can be located in the record.

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (ECF No. 202) is denied as moot.

13

2. Defendants’ request for leave to file a second dispositive motion concerning plaintiff’s

14
15

retaliation claims (ECF No. 203) is granted.
3. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (ECF No. 212) is granted in that his

16

response to the motion for summary judgment shall be filed within 60 days from the

17

date of this order.

18
19
20

4. Plaintiff’s request for a court order authorizing copies in excess of 50 pages (ECF No.
212) is denied.
DATED: December 17, 2013.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2