IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 16, 2008
GARY DRUMMONDS, PLAINTIFF,
DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: William M. Wunderlich United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER RE MOTIONS (DOC 75, 78)
Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at Salinas Valley State Prison, is proceeding in a prisoner civil rights action against defendant correctional officials employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran (SATF) for alleged civil rights violations that occurred while Plaintiff was housed at SATF.
Pending before the court are Plaintiff's motions to compel filed on March 17, 2008, and May 5, 2008. Plaintiff's motions are titled as motions to subpoena records from the CDCR. Plaintiff indicates that the CDCR is in possession of documents "that plaintiff absolutely requires in order to aggressively prosecute and survive summary judgment." Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has not filed opposition to the motion.
On March 13, 2008, an order was entered, denying a similar request by Plaintiff. In that motion, Plaintiff sought an order compelling state officials to cooperate with Plaintiff in locating his missing legal property. That order was denied on the ground that Plaintiff made vague, unsupported accusations that Defendants or defense counsel conspired with prison officials to remove documents from Plaintiff's cell. Plaintiff did not specify any particular documents that he sought. Plaintiff did not refer to any properly propounded discovery requests that were objected to by Defendants.
In these motions, Plaintiff seeks the court's assistance in issuing subpoenas to state officials to get his property. Plaintiff identifies a specific envelope, and does refer to Administrative Segregation Unit property officers. The events at issue in this lawsuit occurred at SATF. There are no defendants in this action employed at Salinas Valley State Prison. Plaintiff does not refer to documents in the possession of any defendant. Further, the court notes that discovery in this matter closed on May 2, 2007. The court will therefore not entertain any discovery motions. The court will, however, grant Plaintiff an extension of time in which to file opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff is referred to the informational order of March 30, 2006, which explains the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motions for a subpoena are denied.
2. Plaintiff is granted an extension of time of thirty days from the date of service of this order in which to file opposition to the motion for summary judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.