Durham v. Chief Bureau of Classification and Reception et al

Filing 116

ORDER granting plaintiff's 115 motion to stay is Granted, and the Court has considered the new information plaintiff has asserted in his motion for leave to supplement his motion to stay. For good cause shown, defendants' 112 and [114 ] motions for extension of time are Granted and plaintiff's 113 motion is Granted to the extent it seeks an extension of time. The deadline for the parties to file their supplemental briefs concerning the impact of Surles on the exhaustion is sues in this case is extended to 1/10/2017. To the extent that plaintiff seeks a stay of proceedings of at least three months, plaintiff has filed to present any evidence to support his allegations that he cannot safely access legal materials due to an "ongoing campaign" by other inmates "to taunt, harass, and physically attack him." Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to stay proceedings is Denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 12/6/2016. (art)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)