Eckard v. Mitchell

Full title: GABRIEL ECKARD Plaintiff, v. CHARLES MITCHELL, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Date published: Jul 26, 2019

CASE NO. C18-1810 RSM (W.D. Wash. Jul. 26, 2019)

Opinion

CASE NO. C18-1810 RSM

07-26-2019

GABRIEL ECKARD Plaintiff, v. CHARLES MITCHELL, et al., Defendants.

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Gabriel Eckard's Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections. Dkt. #31. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff's Motion for a Time Extension.

On May 17, 2019, Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and dismiss this matter with prejudice. Dkt. #25. On June 4, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's first request for a time extension and allowed him until July 8, 2019 to file his objections. Dkt. #30.

Before the July 8 deadline, Plaintiff filed a second request for extension of time on the basis that he is only provided "3 to 6 hours of law library time a week" including computer access. Dkt. #31 at 1. He also states that he is currently litigating "about 13 lawsuits and a criminal case" and therefore requires more library access than he is currently being provided. Id.

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for a second extension. Although the Court has acknowledged inmates' right to law library access and granted his previous time extension request on that basis, see Dkt. #30, Plaintiff's argument that he needs more access than what he is currently being provided cannot reasonably be construed as an infringement on his right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). Because Plaintiff's original deadline expired before this Court ruled on his Motion, the Court will allow Plaintiff seven (7) days from the date of this Order to file his Objections. If Plaintiff fails to file his Objections within this time frame, the Court will consider them waived.

CONCLUSION

The Court, having reviewed the relevant briefings, does hereby find and ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. #31) is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff's time to file Objections is within seven (7) days from the date of this Order.

DATED this 26^th day of July 2019.

/s/_________

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE