Opinion
20-cv-07534 BLF (PR)
01-10-2024
SHIKEB SADDOZAI, Plaintiff, v. M. B. ATCHLEY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION (Docket No. 77)
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 and officials at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), as well as the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff's third amended complaint (“TAC”) is the operative complaint in this matter. Dkt. No. 38. The Court dismissed some claims and ordered cognizable claims served on the sole remaining Defendant, S. Tomlinson. Dkt. No. 40. On November 20, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 72. Plaintiff's opposition was due 28 days later, i.e., by December 18, 2023, Dkt. No. 71 at 1-2, but Plaintiff did not file anything during that time. However, on December 8, 2023, Defendant filed notice that he had been notified by Plaintiff's mother via e-mail that Plaintiff does not have his legal materials and it has hindered him from responding to court deadlines. Dkt. No. 76. Then on January 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file opposition, stating that this was his second attempt to notify the Court as his last legal mail was returned on December 27, 2023, without reason. Dkt. No. 77 at 1. He also states that he did not have access to all his legal property when he was moved into a different cell. Id. at 18.
Although the motion is untimely, the Court finds good cause to grant the request for additional time. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to Defendant's summary judgment motion no later than forty-two (42) days from the date this order is filed.
Defendant shall file a reply within fourteen (14) days from the date Plaintiff's opposition is filed.
This order terminates Docket No. 77.
IT IS SO ORDERED.