Walker v. Mohadjer et al

Filing 121

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 8/1/2016 GRANTING plaintiff's 118 motion for an extension of time. Plaintiff has 14 days to file and serve his opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants' re ply, if any, shall be due within 7 days thereafter. Plaintiff's 120 motion to correct his TRO is GRANTED. The Clerk shall file plaintiff's 119 motion for TRO as a new action in the Fresno Division of the USDC for the Eastern District of California. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEFFREY E. WALKER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-1193 WBS AC P

v.

ORDER

MOHADJER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a former1 state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

17
18

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 13, 2016, the court granted plaintiff an

19

additional thirty days to file his opposition to defendants’ February 25, 2016 motion for summary

20

judgment. The court warned plaintiff that absent extraordinary circumstances, no additional

21

extensions of time would be granted. ECF No. 117.
On June 20, 2016, plaintiff requested an additional thirty days to file his opposition. ECF

22
23

No. 118. Plaintiff entitled his request “motion for extension of time request notes [sic]

24

extraordinary circumstances,” and asserted that he requires an extension because he “needs more

25

time to go through legal documents.” Id.

26

////

27
28

1

Plaintiff currently resides at Coalinga State Hospital. ECF No. 116.
1

1

On June 24, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for an injunction and temporary restraining

2

order. ECF No. 119. On July 29, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion explaining that the temporary

3

restraining order had been filed in the wrong case and requesting that the motion be forwarded to

4

Fresno Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, for filing

5

as a new case. See ECF No. 120. To date, plaintiff has not filed his opposition to defendants’

6

pending summary judgment motion.

7

In his request for an extension of time, plaintiff asserts that he requires an extension

8

because he “needs more time to go through his legal documents.” ECF No. 118. Considering

9

that plaintiff has had more than five months to prepare his opposition to defendants’ motion for

10

summary judgment, these circumstances do not appear to be extraordinary. However, in light of

11

plaintiff’s pro se status, and in an extreme abundance of caution, the court will grant plaintiff one

12

final opportunity to file his opposition.

13

Plaintiff must file his opposition, or a statement of non-opposition, within fourteen

14

(14) days from the date of service of this order. Defendants’ reply, if any, shall be due within

15

seven days thereafter. If plaintiff fails to file his opposition, defendants’ motion for summary

16

judgment will be deemed unopposed, and the matter submitted.

17

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 118) is granted.

19

2. Plaintiff is granted fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this order to file and

20

serve his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants’ reply,

21

if any, shall be due within seven (7) days thereafter.

22

3. Plaintiff’s motion to correct his temporary restraining order (ECF No. 120) is granted.

23

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining

24

order (ECF No. 119) as a new action in the Fresno Division of the United States

25

District Court for the Eastern District of California.

26

DATED: August 1, 2016

27
28
2