Cotton v. Cate et al

Filing 30

ORDER by Judge William Alsup denying 24 Motion for Telephone Calls ; denying 25 Motion for Judicial Determination; granting 26 Motion for Extension of Time to File (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2010)

Cotton v. Cate et al

Doc. 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TREANDOUS COTTON, Plaintiff, v. MATTTHEW CATE, CDCR Director; HEDGEPETH, Warden; G.A. NEOTTI, Chief Deputy Warden; SUE SUMMERSET, Departmental Food Administrator; A. LANDOU, Chaplain; J. BRUNSCHER, Supervising Correctional Cook; R. CONWAY, Correctional Food Manager; K. ROBINSON, Assitant Correctional Food Manager; R. MANUEL, Defendants. / No. C 09-0385 WHA (PR) ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME; DENYING MOTIONS FOR TELEPHONE CALLS AND FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

(Docket Nos. 24, 25, 26)

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The first amended complaint was found to contain cognizable claims under 28

U.S.C. 1915A(a) when liberally construed, and it was served upon defendants. Defendants
motion to dismiss was thereafter granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff has filed a motion for a court order to allow him to make telephone calls to "all the necessary spiritual guides of Shetaut Neter" in order to "set up a business opportunity for an organic vegan vendor company." Such phone calls are not necessary to advance his present case, and plaintiff has not provided any authority that he has any general right to such an order.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Consequently, the motion (docket number 24) is DENIED. Plaintiff has also field a motion for a "judicial determination" that defendants' attorney, D. Robert Duncan, is committing a "fraud upon the court." The basis for this motion is that plaintiff demanded from Mr. Duncan his "identification and credentials" to appear before the court, and Mr. Duncan has evidently failed to respond. Mr. Duncan's state bar number appears on the front page of all of defendants' filings, which should suffice. Plaintiff's motion (docket number 25) is DENIED. Good cause appearing, defendants' motion for an extension of time, to and including December 17, 2010, in which to file a motion for summary judgment (docket number 26) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's opposition to the motion, if any, shall be filed with the court and served upon defendants no later than thirty days from the date the motion is filed. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen days after the date the opposition is filed. IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

Dated: October

27

, 2010

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\W HA\CR.09\COTTON.MOT.wpd

2