United States District Court, E.D. California
September 18, 2014
RUDY AROCHA, Plaintiff,
E. SAUCEDA, et al., Defendants.
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 2, 2014, defendants Hart, Munoz and Rogel filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 111.) On May 9, 2014, defendants Hart, Munoz and Rogel filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 114.)
On May 14, 2014, the undersigned granted plaintiff an extension of thirty days to file his opposition to defendants' summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 115.) On July 10, 2014, the undersigned granted plaintiff's request for a sixty days extension of time to file his oppositions to defendants' pending motions. (ECF No. 119.) Sixty days passed and plaintiff did not file his oppositions to these motions. Accordingly, on September 17, 2014, the undersigned ordered plaintiff to show cause why he should not be sanctioned and/or why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to file oppositions to defendants' pending motions. (ECF No. 122.)
On September 16, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for a sixty days extension of time to file his oppositions. (ECF No. 121.) This motion had not yet been entered on the court docket when the undersigned issued the order to show cause on September 17, 2014.
In the motion for extension of time, plaintiff states that he has been in administrative segregation since June 19, 2014. Plaintiff alleges that since that time, he has had no physical access to the law library. Plaintiff also alleges that he has had no "meaningful" access to the law library paging system. Plaintiff alleges that on August 28, 2014, he was recommended for a transfer to a different prison.
Based on the circumstances alleged in plaintiff's pending motion for extension of time, plaintiff will be granted one final sixty days extension of time to file his oppositions to defendants' pending motions. No further requests for extensions of time are permitted. Despite plaintiff's difficulties in preparing his oppositions, this action must move forward. If plaintiff does not file his oppositions within sixty days, defendants' motions will be taken under submission for decision.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The September 17, 2014 order to show cause (ECF No. 122) is vacated;
2. Plaintiff's September 16, 2014 motion for extension of time (ECF No. 121) is granted; plaintiff's oppositions to defendants' motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss are due within sixty days of the date of this order; no further requests for extensions of time are permitted.