Tunstall v. Knowles, et al

Filing 153

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 9/14/11 GRANTING IN PART 140 and 141 Motion; DENYING 148 Motion for Extension. After review of plaintiffs opposition to defendants 4/5/11 motion, this courts 5/3/11 142 Order granting defendants motion is confirmed. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ROBERT TUNSTALL,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:08-cv-3176-WBS-JFM (PC)

vs.
MIKE KNOWLES, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

17

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s original complaint, filed December 31,

18

2008. Therein, plaintiff claims defendants Mike Knowles, V. Kahle, J. P. Gonzalez, all officials

19

at California Medical Facility (CMF), and N. Grannis, Chief of the Inmate Appeals Branch with

20

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, have violated his federal

21

constitutional and statutory rights by denying him access to sign language classes.

22

On April 28, 2011 and April 29, 2011, plaintiff filed requests styled as motions

23

for injunctive relief. By these requests, plaintiff seeks leave of court to file an opposition to

24

defendants’ April 5, 2011 motion to modify the scheduling order. Plaintiff apparently failed to

25

properly address the envelope by which he intended to mail the opposition to the court.

26

Defendants’ motion was granted by order filed May 3, 2011. Review of plaintiff’s opposition,
1

1

which is appended as an exhibit to plaintiff’s motions, reveals no grounds that would warrant

2

reconsideration of that order. The court’s May 3, 2011 order will be confirmed.

3

On June 2, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion styled as a motion for a ninety-day

4

extension of time. By that motion, plaintiff apparently sought a stay of this action pending

5

completion of his transfer to California State Prison-Sacramento (CSP-Sacramento). Plaintiff

6

filed a notice of change of address on June 22, 2011. Plaintiff’s June 2, 2011 motion is moot and

7

will therefore be denied.

8

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1. Plaintiff’s April 28, 2011 and April 29, 2011 requests are granted in part;

10
11

2. After review of plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ April 5, 2011 motion, this
court’s May 3, 2011 order granted defendants’ motion is confirmed; and

12
13

3. Plaintiff’s June 2, 2011 motion for a ninety-day extension of time is denied.
DATED: September 14, 2011.

14
15
16
17
18

12
tuns3176.mos

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2