IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 29, 2010
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (Doc. 447) to file a response to the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants. Plaintiff does not ask for a specific amount of time. Nonetheless, good cause appearing therefor, the request is granted. Plaintiff may file a response within 45 days of the date of this order.
Plaintiff has also requested clarification as to Judge Karlton's order (Doc. 448). The majority of plaintiff's request appears to relate to his lack of understanding as to when his opposition is due. As plaintiff's request for additional time to respond to the motion for summary judgment is granted herein, that should clarify when plaintiff's opposition is due. To that extent, his motion is granted. As to plaintiff's mention of his objections to his deposition, he may address his position related to the deposition in his opposition to the motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff has also filed several requests for subpoenas, which he has identified as documents 222, 271, 370, 391, 352, 353, and 354. Within these documents are requests for information from other inmates personal files, documents from the Department of Justice, and copies of documents which have either been received or requested and denied during discovery. However, plaintiff fails to identify who he is requesting documents from with his proposed subpoenas.
Plaintiff's requests for other inmates' files is denied. The granting of such a request would violate the other inmates' privacy, and the information contained therein would not be relevant to the claims remaining in this action. Similarly, plaintiff's request for a subpoena for documents from the Department of Justice is denied. These documents relate to studies regarding prisoner rape, which is not relevant to the case here. Whether or not plaintiff was raped is not part of this action. Rather, his treatment following his report of rape, the release of the documents related to that report, retaliation following his report of rape, and denial of shoes and blankest are the remaining claims in this case. Thus, the undersigned finds no relevance as to the documents requested from the Department of Justice.
Finally, plaintiff's other subpoena request, wherein he requests documents such as his entire central file and other documents previously requested in his discovery requests, fails to identify who the subpoena would be issued against and is denied on that basis. In addition, the undersigned has already granted his request for review of his entire central file, he has been provided redacted versions of the confidential reports,*fn1 and the job descriptions have already been addressed through discovery. Several of the other documents plaintiff has requested should be contained in his central file, which he has since reviewed. Therefore, Plaintiff's request for these documents is moot.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to respond to the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 447) is granted;
2. Plaintiff may file his response to the motion for summary judgment within 45 days of the date of this order;
3. Plaintiff's request for clarification (Doc. 448) is granted as far as this order provides clarification as to when his opposition to the motion for summary judgment is due; and
4. Plaintiff's requests for subpoenas are denied as moot, immaterial, and for lack of clarity.