Morris v. Bradford et al
Filing
86
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 12/22/16 recommending that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 83 be granted. This case be stayed until plaintiff is returned to CSP-Sacramento and has access to his legal materials. Defendants' 1/14/16 motion for summary judgment 70 be denied without prejudice to its renewal when the stay is lifted and the case re-opened. Plaintiff be ordered to inform the court when he is returned to CSP-Sacramento. The clerk of the court be directed to administratively close this case. Motions 70 and 83 referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LEON E. MORRIS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:11-cv-1171 TLN DB P
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A.J.R. BRADFORD, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights
17
18
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 14, 2016 defendants moved for summary judgment.
19
(ECF No. 70.) Plaintiff received multiple extensions of time to file an opposition. (See Orders
20
dated Feb. 12, April 21, and Nov. 1, 2016 (ECF Nos. 73, 74, 82).) On July 13, 2016, plaintiff
21
sought a temporary stay of these proceedings. (ECF No. 76.) On November 1, 2016, the court
22
denied that request and informed plaintiff that he had thirty days to file an opposition to
23
defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 82.)
On November 18, 2016, plaintiff filed a “declaration” in which he explains that he has
24
25
been temporarily transferred to the psychiatric program at Salinas Valley State Prison and was not
26
permitted to bring any of his legal property with him. Plaintiff states that he will not have access
27
to his legal property until he returns to California State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-Sacramento”).
28
////
1
1
(ECF No. 83.) Plaintiff does not know how long he will be incarcerated at Salinas Valley. (Id.
2
at 2.)
When the court considered plaintiff’s prior motion for a stay, plaintiff had not been
3
4
transferred to Salinas Valley and the court was unaware that plaintiff would not be permitted
5
access to his legal materials if he was. Based on this new information, the undersigned construed
6
plaintiff’s November 18, 2016 filing as a motion for reconsideration and ordered defendants to
7
respond. (ECF No. 84.) Defendants filed a response in which they confirm that plaintiff has been
8
transferred to the psychiatric program at Salinas Valley State Prison due to mental health issues
9
and that as a result of the transfer, plaintiff no longer has access to his legal paperwork because it
10
is still at CSP-Sacramento. (ECF No. 85.) Defendants agree that a temporary stay is appropriate
11
until plaintiff is returned to CSP-Sacramento and has access to his legal paperwork.
12
Accordingly, and good cause appearing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that
13
1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 83) be granted;
14
2. This case be stayed until plaintiff is returned to CSP-Sacramento and has access to his
15
legal materials;
3. Defendants’ January 14, 2016 motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 70) be denied
16
17
without prejudice to its renewal when the stay is lifted and the case re-opened;
18
4. Plaintiff be ordered to inform the court when he is returned to CSP-Sacramento; and
19
5. The Clerk of the Court be directed to administratively close this case.
20
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
21
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
22
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
23
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned
24
“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
25
objections shall be filed and served within seven days after service of the objections. The parties
26
////
27
////
28
////
2
1
are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of the
2
right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
3
Dated: December 22, 2016
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/morr1171.fr stay
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?