Smith v. Triveno et al

Filing 84

ORDER that Plaintiff's motion for continuance 76 is GRANTED. His response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment 80 is timely filed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG; cc to Plaintiff)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

4
5
WILLIAM G. SMITH,
6

Plaintiff,
7

NO. C11-5401 RBL/KLS

v.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

RODULF TRIVENO, RANDY
PIERCE, CATHERINE BAUM, GARY
FLETCHER,WILLIAM ROLLINS,
PATRICK GLEBE, DAN VAN OGLE,
KERRI McTARSNEY, DENNIS
DAHNE, TAMMY NIKULA, DANO
GORTON, KATHY RENINGER,
JOSEPH LOPIN, ELDON VAIL, DAN
PACHOLKE, SEAN MURPHY,
STEVE HAMMOND, and
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

15

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF
TIME TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants.

16
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 64) is presently pending before
17
18

the Court. Defendant’s motion was set for hearing on Friday, February 24, 2012. Plaintiff’s

19

response was due on February 20, 2012. On February 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for

20

extension of time of his deadline to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

21

ECF No. 76. Plaintiff requests an extension until March 23, 2012 because a leak in the library

22

roof kept him accessing the law library for one week. Id. Defendants oppose the requested

23

extension and provide a declaration from the librarian stating that the library was closed for

24
25
26

only two and one half hours due to a leak in the roof but open at all other times for inmate use.
ECF Nos. 78 and 79. Plaintiff filed a reply and provides his affidavit and the affidavit of

ORDER - 1

1

another inmate stating that the library was closed for more than one day because of the leak,

2

the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, and snow days. ECF No. 82. Plaintiff filed his response

3
4

to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on March 1, 2012. ECF No. 80. Defendants
filed their reply on March 5, 2012. ECF No. 81.

5
6

Because Plaintiff has already filed his response, he does not require an extension until

7

March 23, 2012. The Court will, however, grant Plaintiff an extension until March 1, 2012,

8

so that his response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 80) may be

9

deemed timely filed.

10
11

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
(1)

Plaintiff’s motion for continuance (ECF No. 76) is GRANTED. His response

12
to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 80) is timely filed.
13
14
15
16

(2)

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel for

Defendants.
DATED this 14th day of March, 2012.

17

A

18

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER - 2