McCoy v. Evans et al

Filing 42

ORDER (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/21/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

AARON McCOY,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. C 09-4768 SI (pr)

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
MIKE EVANS, warden; et al.,
Defendants.
/

13
14

Defendants filed an ex parte request for a 15-day extension of time to file a reply in

15

support of their motion for summary judgment. Upon due consideration of the request and the

16

accompanying declaration of attorney Erin Sullivan, the court GRANTS the request. (Docket

17

# 39.) Defendants must file and serve their reply no later than August 12, 2011. No further

18

extensions of this deadline should be expected.

19

Plaintiff filed a motion for an order compelling prison officials not to transfer him during

20

the pendency of this action because he finds his current place of incarceration a relatively

21

supportive environment from which to litigate. The motion is DENIED. (Docket # 38.) To

22

grant the requested relief, the court would have to interfere with the ordinary day-to-day

23

operations of the prison, which generally federal courts are discouraged from doing. See Turner

24

v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84-85 (1987) (judiciary should exercise restraint on matters of prison

25

administration).

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff's motion to file a lengthy opposition to defendants' motion for summary

2

judgment is DISMISSED as unnecessary. (Docket # 37.) A week before he filed his motion,

3

the court had already permitted plaintiff's 69-page opposition brief.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 21, 2011

_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2