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.

Goolsby v. Carrasco

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 1, 2010

THOMAS GOOLSBY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CARRASCO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COMMUNICATION WITH PRISONERS (Doc. 27)

Plaintiff Thomas Goolsby ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court order California Correctional Institution ("CCI"), where Plaintiff is currently incarcerated, to permit Plaintiff to communicate with other prisoners. (Doc. 27, Mot. 2-3.) Plaintiff contends that he needs declarations from other prisoners to use in his reply to Defendants' opposition to his motions for preliminary injunction and for summary judgment. (Id.)

The Court denies Plaintiff's requests. Plaintiff is incorrect when he contends that CCI does not permit communication between prisoners. Inmates may correspond with other inmates, pursuant to title 15, section 3139 of the California Code of Regulations, by contacting their correctional counselor. Plaintiff should utilize the prison institution's procedures prior to seeking a court order.

Plaintiff contends that he needs to obtain declarations to reply to Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. Defendants contend that Plaintiff's motion is moot. Plaintiff makes no good argument why other inmate declarations are necessary to reply. The Court denies any such request. No extension of time will be granted.

If Plaintiff requires an extension of time to file a reply to Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff should file a separate motion. Plaintiff must demonstrate good cause in the motion why an extension of time is necessary to file a reply. Failure to do so will result in the denial of a reply.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for communication with prisoners is DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100601

© 1992-2010 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.