Polk v. Cavin et al

Filing 258

ORDER DENYING 255 , 256 , 257 REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; DENYING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS; DENYING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 19, 2013.(mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JAMES CAVIN, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
_______________________________ )
SUSAN MAE POLK,

No. C 08-1483 MMC (PR)
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME; DENYING
REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR
SANCTIONS; DENYING REQUEST
FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Docket Nos. 255, 256, 257)

18

On March 17, 2008, plaintiff, a California prisoner then incarcerated at the Central

19

California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla, California (“CCWF”), and proceeding pro se,

20

filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Now before the Court are

21

plaintiff’s requests for leave to file: (1) a motion for an extension of time to file an opposition

22

to defendant’s motion for summary judgment; (2) a motion to “compel disclosure and impose

23

sanctions on defendants”; and (3) a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of

24

plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s order of November 27, 2012.

25

Plaintiff’s request to file the above-referenced motion for an extension of time and

26

motion to “compel disclosure and impose sanctions on defendants” are hereby DENIED for

27

the reasons set forth in the Court’s order of February 19, 2013.

28
1

Plaintiff currently is incarcerated at the California Institution for Women (“CIW”).

1

Plaintiff’s request to file the above-referenced motion for reconsideration is hereby

2

DENIED for the reason that plaintiff fails to identify a cognizable basis for reconsideration.

3

See Civil L.R. 7-9(b) (setting forth circumstances where reconsideration may be appropriate).

4

This order terminates Docket Nos. 255, 256, and 257.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

DATED: March 19, 2013
_________________________
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

9

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
2