Morris v. Bradford et al
Filing
98
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 5/17/2018 RECOMMENDING the stay of these proceedings be lifted. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
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
13
14
15
No. 2:11-cv-1171 TLN DB P
Plaintiff,
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A.J. R. BRADFORD, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights
18
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 14, 2016, defendants filed a motion for
19
summary judgment. (ECF No. 70.) On July 13, 2016, before he had filed an opposition to the
20
motion, plaintiff moved to stay this case based on his transfer to a prison where he did not have
21
access to his legal materials. (ECF No. 76.) On February 14, 2017, the court stayed these
22
proceedings until plaintiff regained access to his legal property. (ECF No. 87.)
23
On January 17, 2018, defendants informed the court that plaintiff had been transferred to a
24
prison where he should be permitted access to his legal materials. Defendants moved to re-open
25
this case. (ECF No. 88.) In a status report filed February 5, 2018, plaintiff informed the court
26
that he had been transferred to California State Prison-Los Angeles (“CSP-LAC”) but did not
27
have his legal property. (ECF No. 90.) Plaintiff stated that he had been told by prison officials
28
that his legal property was lost.
1
1
In an order filed February 22, 2018, the court ordered counsel for defendants to contact
2
the litigation coordinators at CSP-LAC, and if necessary, California State Prison-Sacramento
3
(“CSP-Sac”) to attempt to determine the whereabouts of plaintiff’s legal materials. (ECF No. 91.)
4
The court also ordered defendants’ counsel to file a response detailing their findings.
5
On March 16, 2018, defendants’ counsel informed the court that most of plaintiff’s legal
6
materials had been returned to him. (ECF No. 92.) However, those materials apparently did not
7
include the legal materials from this proceeding. Defendants were ordered to provide plaintiff
8
copies of the documents from this case that may be important to permit plaintiff to proceed with
9
the action. (ECF No. 94.) On April 17, 2018, defendants filed a statement that they have
10
provided plaintiff with copies of those documents. (ECF No. 97.) Defendants ask that the court
11
re-open this case and schedule the remaining briefing on their summary judgment motion.
12
Accordingly, the court will recommend this proceeding be re-opened. If and the district
13
judge adopts that recommendation, this court will schedule the remaining briefing on defendants’
14
motion for summary judgment.
15
Thus, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the stay of these proceedings be lifted.
16
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
17
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
18
after being served with these findings and recommendations, either party may file written
19
objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's
20
Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the
21
specified time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v.
22
Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
23
Dated: May 17, 2018
24
25
26
27
DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/morr1171.lift stay fr
28
2
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?