IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 18, 2012
MARK ANTHONY MORENO, PLAINTIFF,
DAVID MEDINA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests an extension of time to file objections to findings and recommendations he received on July 27, 2012. Dckt. No. 106. He also moves to compel defense counsel and the warden at RJ Donovan Correctional Facility to provide him with his personal property and to produce copies of his legal documents and medical records. Dckt. Nos. 107, 108. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff's motions are denied.
Plaintiff's request for an extension of time references findings and recommendations issued on or around July 27, 2012. However, the court did not issue any order or findings and recommendations on or around that date. Findings and recommendation were issued on June 29, 2012, but on August 9, the court vacated those findings and recommendations. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time must therefore be denied as unnecessary.
Plaintiff also seeks a court order for the return of his personal and legal property. Plaintiff previously made a similar request with the court, and the court informed him that he was required to use the administrative appeals process available at his institution to resolve the issue. Dckt. No. 105. In his current filings plaintiff indicates that he has commenced the administrative appeals process, but that he has not yet received a response. Although the administrative appeals process may be taking longer than plaintiff would like, plaintiff muse await a response to his appeal and must not circumvent the process by seeking relief from the court.
The court notes that defendants re-filed their summary judgment motion on September 10, 2012. Dckt. No. 109. Plaintiff may rely on the opposition he filed to defendants' first summary judgment motion, or he may file a new opposition brief on or before October 10, 2012. If plaintiff wishes to file a new opposition but is unable to meet this deadline, he may request an extension of time from the court explaining why he was unable to complete an opposition in the time provided.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motions (Dckt. Nos. 106, 107, 108) are denied.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.