Wilkins v. Ahern

Filing 299

ORDER GRANTING 298 PLAINTIFF'S SECOND APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND SEVER; REQUESTING ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF ALLOW PLAINTIFF REASONABLE ACCESS TO LEGAL MATERIALS; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on September 19, 2011. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/19/2011: # 1 Certificate of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SHERIFF GREG AHERN, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
______________________________ )
KEENAN WILKINS,

No. C 08-1084 MMC (PR)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
SECOND APPLICATION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
AND SEVER; REQUESTING ALAMEDA
COUNTY SHERIFF ALLOW PLAINTIFF
REASONABLE ACCESS TO LEGAL
MATERIALS; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK
(Docket No. 298)

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On February 22, 2008, plaintiff, a pretrial detainee then incarcerated at the Santa Rita
County Jail (“SRCJ”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 The operative pleading in the instant action is plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint (“SAC”), a sixty-page document that the Court previously determined
stated the following cognizable claims for relief, based on events that allegedly occurred
between March 2007 and December 2008, during which time plaintiff was incarcerated at the
SRCJ: (1) retaliation, (2) unconstitutional conditions of confinement, (3) unlawful use of
1

Plaintiff currently is incarcerated at the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility in Oakland.

1

excessive force, (4) denial of due process, (5) denial of medical care, and (6) denial of mental

2

health care. Pursuant to the Court’s order of service, the SAC was served on approximately

3

sixty defendants. (Docket No. 19.)

4

On September 24, 2010, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the

5

defendants against whom plaintiff asserted claims for denial of medical and mental health

6

care. (Docket No. 242). On June 20, 2011, the remaining defendants filed a Motion to

7

Dismiss Misjoined Parties and to Sever Claims (“Motion to Sever”), asking that the

8

remaining claims be divided into three separate lawsuits. (Docket No. 294.)

9

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s Ex Application for Extension of Time, by which
plaintiff seeks an extension of the September 16, 2011 deadline to file opposition to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

defendants’ Motion to Sever. (Docket No. 298.) Plaintiff states he has been unable to meet

12

the filing deadline because jail officials have confiscated his legal documents. The instant

13

application is plaintiff’s second such request based on the same grounds. (See Docket No.

14

296.) Additionally, plaintiff has submitted numerous letters similarly claiming denial of

15

access to legal documents. (See Docket Nos. 262, 263, 266, 267, 288.)

16

Plaintiff has not shown, however, what legal documents are relevant or necessary to

17

his opposition to defendants’ motion to sever. The limited issue presented by said motion is

18

whether plaintiff’s claims against the remaining defendants are so factually and/or legally

19

related that they belong in the same lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).

20

Nevertheless, the Court will afford plaintiff one additional extension for the purpose

21

of filing his opposition and, in addition, will request the Alameda County Sheriff provide him

22

reasonable access to his legal materials.

23

Accordingly, the Court hereby rules as follows:

24

1. Plaintiff’s second Application for an Extension of Time to oppose defendants’

25

Motion to Sever is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his opposition no later than

26

November 1, 2011. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after

27

plaintiff’s opposition is filed. No further extensions will be granted.

28

2. The Alameda County Sheriff is hereby REQUESTED to provide plaintiff access to
2

1

his legal materials, to the extent such access is consistent with security concerns and other

2

applicable policies and procedures of the facility.

3
4

3. The Clerk is hereby DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on the Alameda
County Sheriff, 1401 Lakeside Drive, 12th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612.

5

This order terminates Docket No. 298.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

DATED: September 19, 2011
_________________________
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3