Opinion
1:22-cv-01585-BAM (PC)
10-25-2023
ESMELING L. BAHENA, Plaintiff, v. LEMON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF NO. 43) SEVEN (7) DAY DEADLINE
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Esmeling L. Bahena (“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 Defendant Mendoza for excessive force and deliberate indifference to medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. All parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 40.) This case is currently set for a video settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on November 17, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.
On October 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for a 90-day extension of time. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiff states that he for the past 2 months he has had a lot of difficulties visiting the prison law library to have access to copies and forms because the prison has been short on staff members. Plaintiff has also been quarantined for 10 days from September 29 to October 9, and on October 12, 2023 Plaintiff was sent to a mental health crisis bed and held for 5 days. Plaintiff was then housed in Administrative Segregation for battery on a peace officer. This whole time Plaintiff did not have his property or legal documents, the chance to visit the law library, to respond to Defendant's answer, or to write a settlement conference letter. Plaintiff is now in Ad-Seg pending the outcome of his RVR and still has not received his property, so he is not able to get all of his documents together to write a settlement conference letter. Plaintiff is also trying to reach out to a prop bono attorney to represent him in the settlement conference. For all of these reasons, Plaintiff requests an extension of 90 days. (Id.)
Plaintiff is reminded that the Court has not granted leave for him to file a response to Defendant's answer to the complaint, and therefore no extension of time is necessary. To the extent Plaintiff is requesting additional time to file a response to Defendant's answer, the request is denied as moot.
However, having considered the request, and in light of the upcoming settlement conference and Plaintiff's apparent lack of access to his legal property and inability to prepare a settlement conference statement while being housed in Administrative Segregation, the Court finds it appropriate to obtain a response from Defendant regarding the motion.
Accordingly, Defendant SHALL FILE a response to Plaintiff's motion for extension of time, (ECF No. 43), within seven (7) days from the date of service of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.