Gray v. Virga, et al.
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/23/2013 ORDERING that plaintiff's 21 motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and plaintiff's response to defendants' motion to dismiss is now due on or before 11/15/2013. (Yin, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BERNARDOS GRAY, JR.,
No. 2:12-cv-3006 AC P
T. VIRGA, et al.,
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 24, 2013
(ECF No. 14). After receiving two extensions of time, plaintiff’s response is currently due on or
before October 31, 2013. On October 7, 2013 plaintiff filed a motion for an order requiring
prison officials at Pelican Bay State Prison to release all three boxes of his legal property to him
at the same time so that he can retrieve “necessary supporting documents to oppose defendants[‘]
motion to dismiss.” ECF No. 21 at 1.
Absent unusual and compelling circumstances not present here, federal courts generally
are discouraged from interfering with day-to-day prison administration decisions. See Turner v.
Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84–86 (1987); Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir.1981) (courts
should avoid enmeshing themselves in minutiae of prison operations in name of constitution); see
generally Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (constitutional right of access to the courts is
limited to the initiation of a court action; the state is not required to enable prisoners to litigate
effectively once in court). Moreover, the relief is sought against a non-party to this action.
Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint concerns events that occurred at California State Prison-
Sacramento. He is currently at inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison. For these reasons, the motion
is denied to the extent that it seeks a court order against Pelican Bay State Prison.
However, since plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court will liberally construe plaintiff’s
motion as a third request for an extension of time to respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss.
See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). So construed, the motion will be granted in part
based upon plaintiff’s averment that he needs the requested legal property to oppose the motion to
dismiss. Plaintiff shall have up to an including November 15, 2013 in which to file a response to
the motion to dismiss. No further extensions of time will be granted absent a showing of
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Plaintiff’s motion at ECF No. 21 is DENIED IN PART, insofar as it seeks an
order for the release of legal property.
To the extent that plaintiff seeks additional time to obtain legal papers from his
property to assist him in responding to defendants’ motion to dismiss, the motion is GRANTED
Plaintiff’s response to defendants’ motion to dismiss is now due on or before
November 15, 2013.
DATED: October 23, 2013
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?