King v. McDonald et al

Filing 121

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/05/13 ordering plaintiff's 10/28/13 request for court order 112 is denied. Plaintiff's 11/18/13 motion 116 is denied. Plaintiff's 11/20/13 motion 118 is denied. The clerk of the court shall reserve a copy of the 10/15/13 findings and recommendations 111 on plaintiff. Plaintiff is granted 14 days from the date of this order in which to file and serve objections to the 10/15/13 findings and recommendations. No further extensions of time will be granted for this purpose. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JESSE STEPHEN KING,

12
13
14

No. 2:10-cv-2797 JAM DAD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

MIKE MCDONALD, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action. Judgment was

18

entered in this action on July 11, 2013. On October 15, 2013, this court issued findings and

19

recommendations recommending that a document filed by plaintiff on July 30, 2013 be construed

20

as a motion for relief from judgment and, so construed, that the motion be denied. The parties

21

were granted fourteen days in which to file and serve objections to those findings and

22

recommendations. On October 28, 2013, plaintiff filed a document styled as a request for an

23

inquiry into the status of his legal property. (ECF No. 112.) By order filed November 7, 2013

24

(ECF No. 113), defendants were directed to file and serve a response to plaintiff’s request. After

25

receiving an extension of time to do so, defendants filed their response on November 25, 2013

26

(ECF No. 119).

27
28

With their response, defendants present evidence that four boxes of personal property
were transferred with plaintiff from High Desert State Prison to the California Substance Abuse
1

1

Treatment Facility (CSATF), and that plaintiff has subsequently received two additional boxes of

2

property. Based upon defendants’ response it appears that no further relief for plaintiff is

3

required.

4

Plaintiff has filed two additional motions with the court, one for oral argument (ECF No.

5

116), and one styled “Reconsideration for a Video Hook-Up” (ECF No. 118). Both motions

6

contain additional argument from plaintiff concerning his allegation that he has been deprived of

7

access to his legal materials. Neither motion is sufficient to establish that plaintiff is currently

8

without access to his legal materials needed to respond to the findings and recommendations

9

issued by this court on October 15, 2013.

10

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

11

1. Plaintiff’s October 28, 2013 request for court order (ECF No. 112) is denied;

12

2. Plaintiff’s November 18, 2013 motion (ECF No. 116) is denied;

13

3. Plaintiff’s November 20, 2013 motion (ECF No. 118) is denied;

14

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to reserve a copy of the October 15, 2013 findings

15
16
17
18
19

and recommendations (ECF No. 111) on plaintiff;
5. Plaintiff is granted fourteen days from the date of this order in which to file and serve
objections to the October 15, 2013 findings and recommendations; and
6. No further extensions of time will be granted for this purpose.
Dated: December 5, 2013

20
21
22
23

DAD:12
king10cv2797.legalpropo

24
25
26
27
28
2