Opinion
2:20-cv-1496 DAD DB P
08-10-2023
TRAVELL C. HOLMES, Plaintiff, v. DAVID BAUGHMAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
DEBORAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs when they required him to use stairs despite having a “no stairs” chrono and he fell injuring his knee. On March 14, 2023, defendant Soltanian filed a motion for sanctions. In a document filed here on May 1, plaintiff requested a 180-day extension of time to respond to the motion. Among other things, plaintiff stated that he was unable to keep his legal materials from being damaged by rain and that some have been lost. Before ruling on plaintiff's request for an extension of time, this court ordered defendants' counsel to inquire about the storage of plaintiff's legal materials. (See ECF No. 90 at 2-3.)
On June 29, counsel filed that response. Counsel states that they contacted Receiving and Release Officer A. Medina at Salinas Valley State Prison where plaintiff is currently incarcerated. Officer Medina informed counsel that: (1) plaintiff maintains two boxes of legal materials in the Legal Connex part of the Receiving and Release area; (2) plaintiff is able to regularly schedule access to these boxes, and is able to store as much legal material in the Legal Connex of Receiving and Release as necessary; (3) there have been no water leaks or other similar problems in that storage area; and (4) Officer Medina visually inspected plaintiffs boxes and found no sign of water damage. (ECF No. 91.)
While he was not required to do so, plaintiff has not countered Officer Medina's statements by responding to the June 29 filing. In any event, plaintiff has now had almost five months to respond to Soltanian's March 14 motion for sanctions. If plaintiff was missing documents, he should have been able to replace them during this time. Plaintiff will be given a deadline to respond to the March 14 motion. As plaintiff has been advised more than once, if he fails to timely respond to discovery, motions, or orders, he may be subject to sanctions, which could include monetary sanctions, dismissal of defendant Soltanian, or dismissal of this entire action.
Plaintiff also states in his May 1 filing that he has mental health issues that make it difficult to litigate this case. This court is sympathetic to his difficulties. However, if plaintiff needs additional time to prepare filings or respond to discovery, plaintiff should file a request for additional time prior to the deadline for the filing or response. See E.D. Cal. R. 144(d).
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs May 1 motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 89) is granted in part. Within thirty days of the filed date of this order, plaintiff shall file a response to defendant Soltanian's March 14 motion for sanctions. If plaintiff fails to file a timely response, this court will impose sanctions. Plaintiff will be given no further extensions of time to respond to Soltanian's motion.