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.

Jason Saunders v. M. Johnson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 11, 2011

JASON SAUNDERS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
M. JOHNSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge

DOC. 127

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Jason Saunders ("plaintiff") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for modification of the discovery and scheduling order, and for injunctive relief. Doc. 126. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On July 14, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objection to the Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. After several extensions of time, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Findings and Recommendations on November 19, 2010.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The Court provides additional analysis to address Plaintiff's objections.

Plaintiff contends that his legal property, which includes various legal treatises, is currently being held at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, and that the Court thus has jurisdiction to require defense counsel to inquire about the location of his legal property there. Plaintiff contends that the legal materials available at California State Prison at Lancaster ("CSP-LAC") are outdated and inadequate for Plaintiff's litigation needs.

The Court does not find Plaintiff's arguments sufficiently persuasive to grant preliminary injunctive relief in this instance. Plaintiff's legal treatises would be more convenient for Plaintiff to have, but his lack of immediate possession of these treatises does not rise to the level of irreparable harm. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (citations omitted) ("A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest."). Plaintiff is still capable of litigating this action, and indicates that he may make requests at the CSP-LAC for various cases.

Regarding Plaintiff's motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order, Plaintiff's motion is granted in part. The Magistrate Judge had recommended that Plaintiff be granted eighty days after adjudication of the Findings and Recommendation to complete discovery. Plaintiff proceeded to file numerous extensions of time, and apparently served discovery requests on Defendants. Plaintiff also submitted a motion to compel on November 12, 2010. Doc. 137. Defendants objected that the requests were untimely, but nonetheless filed responses and objections to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Defs.' Objs., Doc. 138. Plaintiff requested extensions of time to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation and then proceeded to submit a three-page objection that does not appear to have required the additional seventy-five days requested and received by Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court will only grant Plaintiff an additional thirty days from the date of service of this order to complete discovery, including filing a motion to compel.*fn1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 14, 2010, is adopted as stated herein;

2. Plaintiff's motion as to preliminary injunctive relief is DENIED;

3. Plaintiff's motion as to modification of the discovery and scheduling order is GRANTED in part and Plaintiff's discovery requests which were served and pending motion to compel are considered timely;

4. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order in which to file any motion to compel. Defendants will then have twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of the motion to compel to file any opposition. Plaintiff will then have ten (10) days after service of Defendants' opposition to file a reply, if any.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.