Williams v. Hendricks

Full title: CLARENCE LeROND WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. DR. PIERRE S. HENDRICKS, et al.…

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

Date published: May 30, 2013

2:10-cv-1873 KJM DAD P (E.D. Cal. May. 30, 2013)

Opinion

CLARENCE LeROND WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. DR. PIERRE S. HENDRICKS, et al., Defendants. No. 2:10-cv-1873 KJM DAD P United States District Court, E.D. California. May 30, 2013

          ORDER

          DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff has filed two motions requesting, inter alia, additional time to file an opposition to defendant's April 8, 2013, motion to dismiss. In his motions, plaintiff explains that he was in the process of being transferred to a prison out-of-state, but while in route to Arizona prison officials determined he was not eligible to do so. Plaintiff has been returned to Pleasant Valley State Prison but explains that he has had difficulty re-gaining access to his property.

         Insofar as plaintiff has requested additional time to file his opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss, the court will grant plaintiff's motions. However, insofar as plaintiff has requested court orders directed at the warden of various institutions and/or stays of this action in light of his challenges gaining access to his personal property, the court will deny his motions. If plaintiff needs additional time to respond to defendant's motion to dismiss, he may file another motion for an extension of time.

         Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. Plaintiff's motions (Doc. 34 & 36) are granted in part; and

         2. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss on or before July 2, 2013. Defendant shall file a reply, if any, in accordance with Local Rule 230(1).