Krzysztof Wolinski v. M. Colvin et al

Filing 12

SCHEDULING ORDER 10 11 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/22/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/22/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tfS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KRZYSZTOF WOLINSKI,
Plaintiff,

8

SCHEDULING ORDER

9

v.

10

M. COLVIN, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-00583-SI

Re: Dkt. Nos. 10, 11
Defendants.

12
13

Plaintiff has requested an extension of the deadline to object to defendants’ removal of this

14

action from the Monterey County Superior Court. Docket Nos. 10, 11. If a plaintiff wants to

15

challenge the removal of an action, the way to do so is via a motion to remand. See 28 U.S.C.

16

§ 1447(c). Upon due consideration, the court GRANTS the request for extended time. Docket

17

Nos. 10, 11. Plaintiff must file and serve on defense counsel any motion to remand the action to

18

the state court no later than April 14, 2017. If plaintiff files a motion to remand the action,

19

defendants must file and serve their opposition no later than May 12, 2017. And if defendants file

20

an opposition to his motion to remand, plaintiff must file and serve his reply in support of his

21

motion to remand no later than May 26, 2017.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff is cautioned that the court will not further extend the deadline beyond April 14,
2017, for plaintiff to file a motion to remand because he has had more than six weeks to prepare
such a motion and has not yet identified the basis for any such motion. Moreover, the notice of
removal appears proper on its face:

(1) the removal appears to be timely in that moving

defendants report that they were served with the complaint on January 17, 2017, and removed the
action on February 6, 2017, less than thirty days later (see Docket No. 1 at 1); and (2) the
complaint presents a federal question because, although the allegations are mere conclusions, the

1

complaint purports to assert claims for violations of plaintiff’s rights under the First, Fifth, Sixth

2

and Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (see Docket No. 1-1 at 4).

3

In plaintiff’s request for an extension of time, he also asks the court to order prison

4

officials at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego to return documents to him, which

5

were taken and put in storage when he was placed in a “hospital segregation unit.” Docket No. 11

6

at 2. The request to compel the non-defendants to return materials to plaintiff is denied. Absent

7

unusual and compelling circumstances not present here, federal courts generally are discouraged

8

from interfering with day-to-day prison administration decisions. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S.

9

78, 84-85 (1987). Plaintiff may wish to consider filing an inmate appeal to attempt to obtain his

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

paperwork, if he believes it has been improperly confiscated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 22, 2017
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2