Russell v. Houston et al

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion to Extend (filing no. 30 ) is granted in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Plaintiff shall have until September 6, 2010, to respond to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

Russell v. Houston et al

Doc. 31

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA PATRICK RONALD RUSSELL, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT HOUSTON, DENNIS BAKEWELL, MELVIN ROUF, CURTIS MOFFAT, MICHAEL EDISON, and MARK DANNER, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 4:09CV3249

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Filing No. 30.) In his Motion, Plaintiff alleges that he is in administrative segregation and is being denied access to the "bulk" of his legal materials. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 1.) He asks the court to extend his time to respond to Defendants' Motion until 90 days after he is released from segregation. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 2.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, Plaintiff was required to respond to Defendants' Motion by July 9, 2010. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). Plaintiff filed his Motion to Extend on August 2, 2010. (Filing No. 30.) Plaintiff's current confinement in segregation does not explain why he failed to file a timely response to Defendants' Motion. Indeed, Plaintiff's Motion to Extend shows that he does, in fact, have access to the courts. Moreover, Plaintiff does not specify which legal materials he has been denied. Nevertheless, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court will provide Plaintiff with an additional 30 days to respond to Defendants' Motion.

-1-

Dockets.Justia.com

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff's Motion to Extend (filing no. 30) is granted in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Plaintiff shall have until September 6, 2010, to respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. DATED this 5th day of August, 2010. BY THE COURT: Richard G. Kopf United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
-2-