Gray v. Virga, et al.
Filing
22
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)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BERNARDOS GRAY, JR.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
No. 2:12-cv-3006 AC P
T. VIRGA, et al.,
15
ORDER
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a civil rights
18
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 24, 2013
19
(ECF No. 14). After receiving two extensions of time, plaintiff’s response is currently due on or
20
before October 31, 2013. On October 7, 2013 plaintiff filed a motion for an order requiring
21
prison officials at Pelican Bay State Prison to release all three boxes of his legal property to him
22
at the same time so that he can retrieve “necessary supporting documents to oppose defendants[‘]
23
motion to dismiss.” ECF No. 21 at 1.
24
Absent unusual and compelling circumstances not present here, federal courts generally
25
are discouraged from interfering with day-to-day prison administration decisions. See Turner v.
26
Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84–86 (1987); Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir.1981) (courts
27
should avoid enmeshing themselves in minutiae of prison operations in name of constitution); see
28
generally Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (constitutional right of access to the courts is
1
1
limited to the initiation of a court action; the state is not required to enable prisoners to litigate
2
effectively once in court). Moreover, the relief is sought against a non-party to this action.
3
Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint concerns events that occurred at California State Prison-
4
Sacramento. He is currently at inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison. For these reasons, the motion
5
is denied to the extent that it seeks a court order against Pelican Bay State Prison.
6
However, since plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court will liberally construe plaintiff’s
7
motion as a third request for an extension of time to respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss.
8
See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). So construed, the motion will be granted in part
9
based upon plaintiff’s averment that he needs the requested legal property to oppose the motion to
10
dismiss. Plaintiff shall have up to an including November 15, 2013 in which to file a response to
11
the motion to dismiss. No further extensions of time will be granted absent a showing of
12
extraordinary circumstances.
13
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
14
1.
15
16
Plaintiff’s motion at ECF No. 21 is DENIED IN PART, insofar as it seeks an
order for the release of legal property.
2.
To the extent that plaintiff seeks additional time to obtain legal papers from his
17
property to assist him in responding to defendants’ motion to dismiss, the motion is GRANTED
18
IN PART.
19
3.
Plaintiff’s response to defendants’ motion to dismiss is now due on or before
20
November 15, 2013.
21
DATED: October 23, 2013
22
23
24
25
26
27
AC:ts/gray3006
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?