IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 1, 2009
ROBERT P. BENYAMINI, PLAINTIFF,
SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On October 6, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss this action, arguing that plaintiff's complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. Plaintiff repeatedly failed to file an opposition to the motion.*fn1 On June 8, 2009, the court issued findings and recommendations, recommending that defendants' motion be granted on the merits. Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to "halt" all proceedings and "back track" the instant case to the court's January 12, 2009 order, granting plaintiff's request for a ninety-day extension of time to oppose defendants' motion. In essence, plaintiff requests in his pending motion that the court grant him an additional ninety days to oppose defendants' motion. He explains that he has not had access to the law library, that prison officials took his property on April 23, 2009, and that he suffers from a neurological disorder.
In the court's January 12, 2009 order, the court warned plaintiff that it would not grant him any further extensions of time to file an opposition to defendants' motion. Notwithstanding, plaintiff filed a subsequent request for another ninety-day extension of time. In the interests of justice, on April 22, 2009, the court granted plaintiff's subsequent request in part and gave him a final thirty-day extension of time to file his opposition to defendants' motion. The court reiterated that no further extensions of time would be granted for this purpose. Notwithstanding, plaintiff then filed a motion similar to the pending motion to "halt" all of his cases. On May 11, 2009, the court denied plaintiff's motion and told him that if he wished to oppose defendants' motion, he needed to do so in accordance with the court's April 22, 2009 order. This order was returned to the court as undeliverable and marked as refused.
In light of the court's repeated warnings that it would not grant plaintiff any further extensions of time, the court will not now grant him another extension of time to oppose the motion to dismiss. The court has, however, received plaintiff's objections to the findings and recommendations. Because plaintiff's objections were timely filed, the court will forward them to the assigned district judge for consideration with the findings and recommendations issued on June 8, 2009.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's June 12, 2009 motion (Doc. No. 31) is denied.