Opinion
1:11-cv-01222-GSA-PC
07-09-2012
LOFOFORA EVA CONTRERAZ, Plaintiff, v. DIRECTOR OF CDCR, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME AND
DENYING MOTION FOR STAY OF
PROCEEDINGS
(Doc. 20.)
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE
OBJECTIONS OR A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
TO RETURN CONSENT/DECLINE
FORM
I. BACKGROUND
Lofofora Eva Contreraz ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff and two co-plaintiffs filed the Complaint commencing this action on July 25, 2011. (Doc. 1.) On May 24, 2012, the Court entered an order severing the three plaintiffs' claims, leaving Plaintiff Contreraz as the sole plaintiff in this action. (Doc. 18.) On July 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file objections to the Court's order, and for a stay of the proceedings in this action. (Doc. 20.) Plaintiff's motions are now before the Court.
II. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Plaintiff requests an extension of time to file objections to the Court's order of May 14, 2012, which severed the three plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiff requires an extension because she underwent emergency medical treatment and psychiatric observation within the prison and the Regional Medical Center in Reno, Nevada, during the months of March, April, and May 2012, and was unable to access legal services during that time.
In this instance, objections to the Court's order are comparable to a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order. Ordinarily, rulings by a Magistrate Judge are final if no reconsideration is sought within fourteen days. L.R. 303(b). However, the Magistrate Judge has discretion to grant additional time for good cause. Id. Plaintiff has shown good cause for an extension of time to file objections or a motion for reconsideration. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for extension of time shall be granted.
III. MOTION FOR STAY
Plaintiff also requests a stay of all proceedings in this action. The Court does not lightly stay litigation, due to the possibility of prejudice to defendants. Plaintiff has pending deadlines in this action to file an amended complaint and to return the consent/decline form to the Court. Although Plaintiff may be challenged in meeting these deadlines, Plaintiff's only remedy is not a stay of this action. In the alternative, good cause appearing, Plaintiff shall be granted additional time to meet the pending deadlines. Should Plaintiff require a further extension of time, she should file a motion before the current deadline expires.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file objections or a motion for reconsideration is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff's motion for a stay of the proceedings in this action is DENIED;
3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order in which to file objections to the Court's order of May 24, 2012, or in the alternative, to file a motion for reconsideration of the order; and
4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order in which to file an amended complaint and to return the Court's consent/decline form, pursuant to the Court's order of May 24, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE