Pinola v. Virga, et al
Filing
31
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/18/12 ordering plaintiff's motion for discovery and for extension of time 24 is denied. Plaintiff's motion for production of documents and for extension of time 26 is denied. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
RATAJA PINOLA,
11
12
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff,
No. 2: 11-cv-1165 KJM KJN P
vs.
TIM V. VIRGA, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
/
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with an action brought
17
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
18
(“RLUIPA”). Pending before the court are plaintiff’s November 28, 2011 motion for discovery
19
and extension of time, and December 5, 2011 motion for production of documents and extension
20
of time. For the following reasons, these motions are denied.
21
In both pending motions, plaintiff alleges that he was transferred to the California
22
Correctional Institution (“CCI”) on September 8, 2011. Plaintiff alleges that following his
23
transfer, prison officials at CCI lost his legal property related to this action. Plaintiff alleges that
24
without access to his legal property, he cannot file an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss
25
filed September 28, 2011. Plaintiff requests court assistance in locating his legal property and an
26
extension of time to file his opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss.
1
1
On December 8, 2011, the undersigned issued an order observing that no
2
defendants are located at CCI. Pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), the
3
undersigned directed the Warden of CCI to inform the court of the status of plaintiff’s access to
4
his legal property within fourteen days.
5
On December 22, 2011, CCI Warden Stainer filed a response to the December 8,
6
2011 order. According to this response, plaintiff’s property was searched on November 15,
7
2011, prior to his transfer to the Segregated Housing Unit (“SHU”) at CCI. Soon after the
8
search, plaintiff’s legal property was sent to his new housing unit to be issued to plaintiff.
9
However, plaintiff’s legal property was lost. In an attempt to locate the legal property, property
10
officers searched plaintiff’s cell and several surrounding cells, but did not locate it. The property
11
officers interviewed staff in plaintiff’s housing unit regarding the missing legal property, with
12
negative results. On December 21, 2011, staff at CCI provided plaintiff with a copy of the
13
pleadings for every docket entry in this lawsuit.
14
In his response, CCI Warden Stainer further states that on December 14, 2011, the
15
SHU Legal officer interviewed plaintiff regarding the lost legal property. Plaintiff informed the
16
Legal Officer that the only documents that he still needed were the trial transcripts from his
17
criminal conviction, trial transcripts from another matter and his entire Central File. During this
18
interview, plaintiff did not allege that he was missing documents regarding the instant action.
19
20
On January 13, 2012, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants’ motion to
dismiss.
21
As indicated above, CCI prison officials provided plaintiff with copies of his
22
missing legal property relevant to this action and plaintiff has filed his opposition to the pending
23
motion to dismiss. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions for court assistance in locating the missing
24
property and for extensions of time to file his opposition are denied as unnecessary.
25
////
26
////
2
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. Plaintiff’s motion for discovery and for extension of time (Dkt. No. 24) is
3
denied;
4
2. Plaintiff’s motion for production of documents and for extension of time (Dkt.
5
No. 26) is denied.
6
DATED: January 18, 2012
7
8
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
pin1165.po
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?