Opinion
1:18-cv-01324-NE-BAM (PC)
08-30-2021
ANTOINE L. ARDDS, Plaintiff, v. HICKS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISCHARGING AUGUST 3, 2021 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF No. 71)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AS MOOT (ECF No. 74)
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Antoine L. Ardds (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's second amended complaint against: (1) Defendants Hicks, Alcantar, McIntyre, Baylon, and Sanchez for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment arising out of the alleged November 9, 2017 assault; (2) Defendants Hicks, Amaya, Alcantar, McIntyre, Baylon, Sanchez, and Severns for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment arising out of their alleged attempt to improperly assign Plaintiff outside of his designated EOP mental health level of care unit and place him in an occupied cell after a direction that he receive a single cell placement; and (3) Defendants Hicks, Amaya, Alcantar, McIntyre, Baylon, and Sanchez for failure to protect Plaintiff from an alleged assault by Inmate Hall on November 9, 2017, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
On June 25, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies related to the claims asserted in this action as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. (ECF No. 69.) Following Plaintiff's failure to timely file an opposition, the Court issued an order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 71.) Plaintiff was informed that he could comply with the Court's order by filing an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (Id.)
On August 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 72.) Defendants filed their reply on August 16, 2021. (ECF No. 73.)
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file his opposition, filed August 27, 2021. (ECF No. 74.) Defendants have not yet had an opportunity to file a response, but the Court finds a response unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(1).
In his motion for extension of time, Plaintiff states that he is requesting additional time because he believes that his current institution is behind in the processing of legal mail, and because he is suffering from a variety of medical conditions preventing him from investigating any issues with the mail room. Plaintiff requests an extension of forty-five days so he can recover from his medical problems and re-file his opposition. (ECF No. 74.)
As noted above, the Court has already received Plaintiff's opposition, including all of the attached exhibits, on August 9, 2021. (ECF No. 72.) A further extension of time is not necessary, and the Court's August 3, 2021 order to show cause will be discharged. Plaintiff does not need to take any further action regarding Defendants' motion for summary judgment, which the Court will address in due course.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The Court's August 3, 2021 order to show cause, (ECF No. 71), is DISCHARGED; and
2. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file his opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 74), is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.