UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 23, 2010
BARRY LOUIS LAMON, PLAINTIFF,
MATTHEW L. CATE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS PREMATURE, AND DENYING MOTION REQUESTING COURT CONTACT LITIGATION OFFICE AND SECURE RELEASE OF PLAINTIFF'S PROPERTY
Plaintiff Barry Louis Lamon, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 22, 2009. On August 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking at least a fifteen-day extension of time to file any objections, motions, or responses in this case, and seeking an order directing the Clerk of the Court to contact the prison's Litigation Office and notify staff that they must issue Plaintiff's legal files to him. Plaintiff's motion was prompted by the confiscation of his legal property from his cell on August 14, 2010.
At this juncture, there are no motions or orders pending response from Plaintiff. Therefore, his motion for an extension of time is premature and is denied on that ground.
The Court cannot call prison officials and direct them to release Plaintiff's legal material, and Plaintiff's motion is denied. E.g., Norwood v. Vance, 591 F.3d 1062, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545-46 (1979)) (prison officials entitled to deference in the day-to-day management of prison operations); also Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009) (plaintiff must have standing for each form of relief sought); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). If a motion is filed or an order is issued requiring a response from Plaintiff, he may at that time file a motion seeking additional time if he is still without his legal property.
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff's motion is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.