UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 10, 2012
M. CAMPS, ET AL., DOCS. 60, 61, 63, 64
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUBPOENA, MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE, AND MOTION TO COMPEL
On August 3, 2010, Plaintiff Sylester Williams ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 4, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Doc.
35. On February 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for subpoena of his Central File ("C-File"). Doc. 60. On February 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time for appeals unit to respond. Doc. 61. On March 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to submit evidence. Doc.
63. On March 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel missing documentation from Defendants' motion to dismiss. Doc. 60.
Defendants note that Plaintiff already has access to his C-File, and in their response to his motion for extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss, they provided Plaintiff with copies of his relevant appeals. Def. Resp. Mot. Ext. Time at 2, Doc. 37. Plaintiff contends that the Appeals
Coordinator sent Plaintiff a letter stating his appeal was moot for review. Pl. Mot. Subpoena at 2, Doc. 60. However, even if such a letter does exist, this would not assist Plaintiff in a motion to dismiss for exhaustion. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 n.6 (2001) ("[W]e stress the point . . . that we will not read futility or other exceptions into statutory exhaustion requirements where Congress has provided otherwise.") Therefore, there is no evidence that is unavailable to Plaintiff at this stage of the proceedings, where the sole pending issue is a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for subpoena of his Central File is DENIED;
2. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time for appeals unit to respond is DENIED;
3. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to submit evidence is DENIED; and
4. Plaintiff's motion to compel missing documentation from Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.