Williams v. Cate et al

Filing 38

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 05/29/13 ordering plaintiff's motions 34 and 36 are granted in part. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss on or before 07/02/13. Defendant shall file a reply, if any, in accordance with local rule 230(l). (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CLARENCE LeROND WILLIAMS,

11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

No. 2:10-cv-1873 KJM DAD P

vs.
DR. PIERRE S. HENDRICKS, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

Plaintiff has filed two motions requesting, inter alia, additional time to file an

17

opposition to defendant’s April 8, 2013, motion to dismiss. In his motions, plaintiff explains that

18

he was in the process of being transferred to a prison out-of-state, but while in route to Arizona

19

prison officials determined he was not eligible to do so. Plaintiff has been returned to Pleasant

20

Valley State Prison but explains that he has had difficulty re-gaining access to his property.

21

Insofar as plaintiff has requested additional time to file his opposition to

22

defendant’s motion to dismiss, the court will grant plaintiff’s motions. However, insofar as

23

plaintiff has requested court orders directed at the warden of various institutions and/or stays of

24

this action in light of his challenges gaining access to his personal property, the court will deny

25

his motions. If plaintiff needs additional time to respond to defendant’s motion to dismiss, he

26

may file another motion for an extension of time.
1

1

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Plaintiff’s motions (Doc. 34 & 36) are granted in part; and

3

2. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss on or before

4

July 2, 2013. Defendant shall file a reply, if any, in accordance with Local Rule 230(l).

5

DATED: May 29, 2013.

6
7
8
9
10

DAD:9:kly
will1873.36opp

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2