Arline v. Gowen et al

Filing 57

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 01/02/14 ordering plaintiff's 11/25/13 motion 46 is denied without prejudice. Defendants' 12/30/13 motion for an extension of time 55 is granted. Defendants shall file their reply on or before 1/06/14. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEITH DUANE ARLINE, JR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:11-cv-3414 WBS KJN P

v.

ORDER

R. GOWER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. On November 25, 2013, plaintiff

17
18

filed a motion for injunctive relief seeking access to his legal materials so that he could oppose

19

defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On December 6, 2013, plaintiff filed a notice stating

20

that he was released from administrative segregation and received all the withheld legal materials.

21

Plaintiff asked the court not to take action “because the matter [has] been resolved.” (ECF No. 49

22

at 1.) In addition, plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion for summary judgment on December

23

23, 2013. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is moot, and is denied without prejudice.1

24
1

25
26
27
28

On December 30, 2013, plaintiff filed a reply to defendants’ response to the motion for
injunctive relief, claiming that despite the return of his legal materials, plaintiff suffered actual
injury because his civil action, Case No. 1:11-cv-0410 LJO SAB, was “denied.” (ECF No. 56 at
1-2.) To the extent plaintiff contends he has suffered impaired access to the courts, he must raise
such a claim in a new action after he has exhausted his administrative remedies. Moreover, the
court notes that Case No. 11-cv-0410 LJO SAB remains open; plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint on December 11, 2013.

1

Defendants have filed a motion for extension of time to file a reply to plaintiff’s

2

opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Good cause appearing, defendants’

3

request is granted.

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1. Plaintiff’s November 25, 2013 motion (ECF No. 46) is denied without prejudice;

6

2. Defendants’ December 30, 2013 motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 55) is

7
8
9

granted; and
3.

Defendants shall file their reply on or before January 6, 2014.

Dated: January 2, 2014

10
11

/arli3414.eot

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2