Kendrick v. Pina

Full title: Owen Thomas Kendrick, Plaintiff, v. Lieutenant D. Pina, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Oct 9, 2013

1:08-CV-1055-RCC (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2013)

Opinion

Owen Thomas Kendrick, Plaintiff, v. Lieutenant D. Pina, et al., Defendants. No. 1:08-CV-1055-RCC United States District Court, E.D. California. October 9, 2013

          ORDER

          RANER C. COLLINS, Chief District Judge.

         Pending before the Court are Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 73), Plaintiff's Motion for Waiver of Required Copies to the Court (Doc. 77), and Defendant's Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order (Doc. 79).

         I. Motion to Dismiss

         This matter is still under advisement by the Court and not ready for ruling. However, the Court will strike Plaintiff's Response (Doc. 78) to Defendant's Reply as an impermissible surreply.

         II. Motion for Waiver of Required Copies

         Plaintiff states that his priority library user status has ended and that he no longer has immediate access to copying services. Plaintiff further states he is out of paper and thus cannot hand copy. Plaintiff therefore asks the Court to waive required copies to the Court.

         If Plaintiff requires access to the library to conduct research or prepare pleadings, he may submit a Law Library Access Request form. Further, if necessary, Plaintiff may take the required steps to be placed on Preferred Library User status. Finally, the Court has been previously informed by the declaration of J. Jeter, Mailroom Lieutenant, that paper is freely given to indigent inmates, they need only request the paper from the mailroom or housing staff. (Doc.29, Ex. H).

         To the extent that Plaintiff seeks relief from his obligation to mail this Court copies of his documents submitted for filing, the Court will grant Plaintiff's request. However, Plaintiff is still required to submit paper copies of documents intended to be filed to the Clerk of Court.

         III. Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order

         Defendants seek an extension of the dispositive motion deadline so that they may file a motion for summary judgment, if necessary, pending the Court's ruling on their motion to dismiss. This motion will be granted.

         Accordingly,

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendant's Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order (Doc. 79). Defendants will be required to file their motion for summary judgment, if necessary, fourteen days after the Court's ruling on Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint (Doc. 73).

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion for Waiver of Required Copies to the Court (Doc. 77). Plaintiff is not required to mail additional hard copies of documents submitted for filing, but Plaintiff must still mail documents intended to be filed to the Clerk of Court.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Plaintiff's response (Doc. 78) to Defendants' reply as an impermissible surreply.