IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 6, 2012
JEFFREY E. WALKER, PLAINTIFF,
A.H. WHITTEN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is pending. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on January 20, 2012. Following the Ninth Circuit's decision in Woods v. Carey, No. 09-15548 (9th Cir. July 6, 2012), the court provided plaintiff with the notice required by that decision and granted plaintiff until August 9, 2012 to file an amended opposition.
On July 27, 2012, plaintiff filed a document in which he requests a number of things including an extension of time to file an amended opposition. Good cause appearing, plaintiff will be granted an extension of time to file an amended opposition. If plaintiff is precluded by prison staff from being able to determine whether he should file an amended opposition (e.g. by being denied access to his original opposition) or from actually filing one, he should seek another extension of time and inform that court, under the penalty of perjury, exactly how he has been denied access to information, documents or other items he believes he needs to determine whether he should file an amended opposition or actually file one.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended opposition to defendants' pending motion for summary judgment. If plaintiff elects not to file an amended opposition by that date, or file a request for an extension of time to do so which conforms with the requirements identified above, defendants' motion for summary judgment will stand submitted to the court for decision.
2. Any reply to plaintiff's amended opposition shall be due no later than 14 days after service of the amended opposition.
3. All other requests in plaintiff's July 27, 2012 "motion to compel" are denied.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.