From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Amezquita v. Garcia-Cortez

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Dec 5, 2023
20-cv-08285 BLF (PR) (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2023)

Opinion

20-cv-08285 BLF (PR)

12-05-2023

JOSE G. AMEZQUITA, Plaintiff, v. GARCIA-CORTEZ, et al., Defendants.


ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION; DENYING OTHER REQUEST (DOCKET NO. 33)

BETH LABSON FREEMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff, a state inmate, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison staff at Salinas Valley State Prison, where Plaintiff is currently housed. Dkt. No. 1. The Court found the amended complaint stated cognizable claims and ordered the matter served on Defendants. Dkt. No. 20. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on November 3, 2023. Dkt. No. 32.

Plaintiff moves for an extension of time to file an opposition, citing difficulties communicating with his “prisoner assistant” in litigating this matter. Dkt. No. 33. The motion was purportedly signed by Plaintiff on November 30, 2023, and is accompanied by a declaration by this “prisoner assistant,” Michael Jay Harris, who is at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”). Dkt. No. 33-1. The Court notes that the handwriting of the motion and Mr. Harris' declaration are the same, such that it appears that Mr. Harris likely prepared the entire filing and signed Plaintiff's name. Id. This is further supported by the fact that Mr. Harris was the one who filed the papers with the Court and served a copy on Defendants' counsel on the same date as Plaintiff's signature, November 30, 2023, and the return address is HDSP. Id. at 33-1 at 4; Dkt. No. 33-2 at 1.

Plaintiff is advised that because he is proceeding pro se, no one may file papers on his behalf, especially non-parties who are not attorneys. Mr. Harris, who is not an attorney, may not file motions on Plaintiff's behalf nor sign papers on his behalf. As such, the request that Plaintiff and Mr. Harris be allowed “direct mail access” is DENIED.

Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, the Court will GRANT the request for an extension of time on this single occasion. However, no further filings will be accepted by a non-party. Mr. Harris may prepare the filings for Plaintiff, but Plaintiff must sign and file the papers himself because he is proceeding pro se in this matter. Any future papers filed by Mr. Harris in this matter will be stricken from the docket.

Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' summary judgment motion shall be filed no later than forty-five (45) days from the date this order is filed. Defendants' reply shall be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date Plaintiff's opposition is due.

This order terminates Docket No. 33.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Amezquita v. Garcia-Cortez

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Dec 5, 2023
20-cv-08285 BLF (PR) (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2023)
Case details for

Amezquita v. Garcia-Cortez

Case Details

Full title:JOSE G. AMEZQUITA, Plaintiff, v. GARCIA-CORTEZ, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Dec 5, 2023

Citations

20-cv-08285 BLF (PR) (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2023)