Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Funtanilla v. Kelly

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 5, 2009

GREGORIO FUNTANILLA, JR., PLAINTIFF,
v.
KAREN KELLY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Pending before the court is plaintiff's request for extension of time to file objections to the March 19, 2009, findings and recommendations. For the following reasons, this request is denied.

On March 19, 2009, this court recommended that plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment be denied and defendants' motion for partial summary judgment be granted. In the findings and recommendations, this court found that plaintiff had failed to oppose defendants' motion. Rather than filing an opposition addressing the merits of defendants' motion, plaintiff opposed defendants' motion on grounds that counsel previously appointed to represent him should not have consented to the filing of the motion. This court found that plaintiff's opposition was, in essence, an unauthorized motion to strike.

In the pending request for extension of time, plaintiff states that he cannot file objections because he is being denied access to his legal property. Plaintiff requests that the court order prison officials to grant him access to his legal property.

Because plaintiff failed to oppose defendants' motion on the merits, the only issue he could address in his objections would be his failure to file an opposition addressing the merits of defendants' motion. In other words, plaintiff's objections may not address the merits of defendants' motion. For these reasons, plaintiff does not require access to his legal property to prepare his objections.

Based on the circumstances described above, plaintiff's request for extension of time and for access to his legal property is disingenuous.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's April 6, 2009, motion for extension of time (no. 200) is denied.

20090505

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.