Haraszewski v. Knipp

Filing 125

ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 7/20/2020 GRANTING plaintiff's 124 motion for an extension of time, construed as a request to extend his time to file a reply brief to his motion to amend, a re ply brief to his motion to compel, and an opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Within 15 days, plaintiff shall file any reply briefs to his motions to amend and to compel. The time period for plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment is continued. After the court resolves plaintiff's pending motions to amend and to compel, this court will set a deadline for the filing of plaintiff's opposition and defendants' reply. IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's 122 motion for library access be denied. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 30 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

H. DYMITRI HARASZEWSKI,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-2494 JAM DB P

v.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

KNIPP, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Five

19

motions are pending before the court: (1) plaintiff’s motion to amend the third amended

20

complaint; (2) plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses; (3) defendants’ motion for

21

summary judgment; (4) plaintiff’s request for library access; and (5) plaintiff’s motion for an

22

extension of time. Because plaintiff’s recent motion for an extension of time indicates there may

23

be some confusion about the status of each pending motion, this court attempts to clarify what is

24

at issue.

25

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Third Amended Complaint filed March 23.

26

Defendants filed an opposition on April 17. In an order filed on June 19, this court

27

extended the time for plaintiff to file a reply brief to defendants’ opposition. That reply brief was

28

due on July 15.

1

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel filed April 2.

2

Defendants filed an opposition on May 18. In the June 19 order, this court also gave

3

plaintiff an extension of time to file a reply brief to his motion to compel. That reply brief was

4

also due on July 15.

5

3. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed June 29.

6

Pursuant to this court’s order filed April 2, 2018, plaintiff’s opposition to the summary

7

judgment motion is due twenty one days after service of the motion. (ECF No. 54 at 3 (citing

8

Local Rule 230(l)).) In a document filed here on July 13 entitled “Pre-emptive Objection to

9

Defendants’ Expected Motion for Summary Judgment,” plaintiff complains that any motion for

10

summary judgment filed now is premature because plaintiff has outstanding motions to amend

11

and to compel.

12

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was filed within the deadline set out by the

13

Discovery and Scheduling Order, as continued by the court, and is proper. This court does intend

14

to address plaintiff’s outstanding motions before addressing the motion for summary judgment.

15

Those motions will be considered submitted and ready for decision after plaintiff files reply briefs

16

or the time for doing so has expired. Accordingly, this court will provide plaintiff an extension of

17

time to file an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

18

4. Plaintiff’s Request for Library Access filed July 13

19

Plaintiff complains there that he is unable to access the law library due to the COVID-19

20

restrictions in place at Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”). This court recognizes that those

21

restrictions have made it much more difficult for prisoners to research and prepare legal

22

documents. However, the prisons, like much of the rest of California, including the federal

23

courts, are dealing with a pandemic. At this time, this court will not second-guess MCSP’s

24

restrictions designed to keep its inmates and staff safe. This court will, however, liberally grant

25

extensions of time that plaintiff requires to complete his work in this case.

26

5. Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time filed July 16

27

Plaintiff indicates in this motion that he is seeking to extend the time to file an opposition

28

to defendants’ “motions.” It is not clear if plaintiff is referring here to defendants’ motion for
2

1

summary judgment or, as seems more likely, to defendants’ oppositions to plaintiff’s motions to

2

amend and to compel. In any event, this court will grant plaintiff extensions of each of these

3

deadlines.

4

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is construed as a request to extend his time

6

to file a reply brief to his motion to amend, a reply brief to his motion to compel, and an

7

opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. That motion (ECF No. 124) is granted.

8
9
10

2. Within fifteen days of the filed date of this order, plaintiff shall file any reply briefs to
his motions to amend and to compel.
3. The time period for plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment

11

is continued. After the court resolves plaintiff’s pending motions to amend and to compel, this

12

court will set a deadline for the filing of plaintiff’s opposition and defendants’ reply.

13
14
15

Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for library access (ECF No. 122)
be denied.
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

16

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days after

17

being served with these findings and recommendations, either party may file written objections

18

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings

19

and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified

20

time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

21

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

22

Dated: July 20, 2020

23
24
25

DLB:9
DB/prisoner-civil rights/hara2494.36.opp

26
27
28
3