Glass v. Featherly

Filing 51

ORDERED that Glass's motion, (ECF No. 50 ), is granted and the Clerk is directed to mail a copy of Defendants' motion for summary judgment and exhibits, (ECF No. 45 ), to Glass at High Desert State Prison. (Copy of ECF No . 45 attached hereto for distribution to P via HDSP law library.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Glass's motion for extension of time, (ECF No. 49), is GRANTED, in part and DENIED, in part such that Glass's response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 45 ), is now due on or before Monday, March 18, 2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 2/6/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Copy of ECF 45 for Plaintiff)(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

MICHAEL GLASS,

5
6
7

Case No. 3:22-CV-00280-CLB
Plaintiff,

v.

[ECF Nos. 49, 50]

FEATHERLY, et al.,

8

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS

Defendants.

9
10

Before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff Michael Glass (“Glass”) on

11

February 5, 2024. First, Glass filed a motion for the reproduction of Defendants’ motion

12

for summary judgment. (ECF No. 50.) Next, Glass filed a motion to extend time to file a

13

response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 49.) Both motions claim

14

that Glass was not provided a legible copy of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment

15

by the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) facility at which he is housed. (See

16

ECF Nos. 49, 50.) The Court will address each motion in turn.

17

First, Glass requests that the Court provide him with a readable copy of the motion

18

for summary judgment so he can properly oppose the motion. (ECF No. 50.) It is not the

19

Court’s obligation to provide litigants, even indigent ones, with copy services. However,

20

in the interest of judicial economy and due to Glass’s claims that he did not receive a

21

legible copy of this motion in the first instance, the Court will grant Glass’s request in this

22

instance. Therefore, Glass’s motion is granted, and the Clerk is directed to mail a copy of

23

the motion for summary judgment and exhibits, (ECF No. 45), to Glass at High Desert

24

State Prison.

25

Next, the Court will address Glass’s request for a 90-day extension of time to file

26

an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 49 at 3-4.) Glass

27

explains the extension is necessary to allow time to receive a readable copy of the motion

28

and to allow Glass and his “inmate substitute counsel” to review the case file and

1

evidence. These reasons are insufficient to support a 90-day extension for the deadline.

2

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was filed on January 10, 2024. (ECF

3

No. 45.) The following day, Glass was given notice of the motion pursuant to the

4

requirements of Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988), and Rand v.

5

Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (ECF No. 47). In this notice, Glass was explicitly

6

advised that he was required to file his opposition within 21 days after receipt of the

7

motion. (ECF No. 47.) However, Glass did not file a timely opposition, nor did he file a

8

timely motion for an extension of time. In spite of this, the Court sua sponte extended the

9

deadline for Glass to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment by no later

10

than March 4, 2024. (ECF No. 48.)

11

In his motion, Glass has not sufficiently explained why he needs over four times

12

the amount of time ordinarily allowed for an opposition to a motion for summary judgment.

13

Moreover, as the Court has already extended the date for his opposition by 30 days prior

14

to the receipt of this motion, the requested extension is partially moot. However, given

15

Glass’s claimed difficulties in receiving a legible copy of the motion for summary

16

judgment, the Court finds that some additional time to file an opposition is appropriate.

17

Therefore, Glass’s motion for extension of time, (ECF No. 49), is granted, in part

18

and denied, in part. Specifically, the Court extends the deadline to file the opposition to

19

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment by an additional 14 days. Therefore, Glass

20

shall have until Monday, March 18, 2024, to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for

21

summary judgment. Glass is advised that no further extensions of time will be granted

22

absent extraordinary circumstances. If Glass fails to file an opposition, the motion for

23

summary judgment will be submitted to the court for decision.

24

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Glass’s motion, (ECF No. 50), is granted and

25

the Clerk is directed to mail a copy of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and

26

exhibits, (ECF No. 45), to Glass at High Desert State Prison.

27

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Glass’s motion for extension of time, (ECF No.

28

49), is GRANTED, in part and DENIED, in part such that Glass’s response to
2

1

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 45), is now due on or before

2

Monday, March 18, 2024.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

February 6, 2024
DATED: ______________.

5
6

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3