IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 22, 2009
AMOS RYLES, PLAINTIFF,
T. FELKER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 12, 2008, defendant Smith moved to dismiss this case on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Plaintiff failed to timely file an opposition. Accordingly, on January 20, 2009, the court ordered plaintiff to file his opposition or statement of no-opposition to the motion within twenty days. That order warned plaintiff that failure to comply would result in a recommendation of dismissal. Plaintiff again failed to timely file an opposition and on March 9, 2009, the undersigned recommended that this action be dismissed.
On April 17, 2009, after the period for filing objections to the findings and recommendations had passed, plaintiff filed a request for extension of time and for copies of documents in the court file. Plaintiff asserts that he was released from custody in December of 2008 and was reincarcerated in February of 2009, and that a transfer in that month left him without his legal property and unable to respond to the court's order and defendant's motion to dismiss filed last year. While plaintiff's recitation of the facts belies his inability to have timely filed an opposition to defendant's motion in December of 2008, January or early February of 2009, as ordered by the court, in an abundance of caution, the court will grant plaintiff one final opportunity to respond to defendant's now five-month-old motion to dismiss. The court does not intend to extend this time further.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time is granted;
2. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days in which to file both his objections to the findings and recommendations and an opposition to defendant Smith's motion to dismiss;
3. Failure to include the opposition with his objections will result in the March 9, 2009, findings and recommendations being submitted to the district judge; and
4. The court does not intend to grant any further extensions of time.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.