Opinion
No. 2:13-cv-2494 JAM DB P
07-20-2020
H. DYMITRI HARASZEWSKI, Plaintiff, v. KNIPP, et al., Defendants.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Five motions are pending before the court: (1) plaintiff's motion to amend the third amended complaint; (2) plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses; (3) defendants' motion for summary judgment; (4) plaintiff's request for library access; and (5) plaintiff's motion for an extension of time. Because plaintiff's recent motion for an extension of time indicates there may be some confusion about the status of each pending motion, this court attempts to clarify what is at issue.
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Third Amended Complaint filed March 23.
Defendants filed an opposition on April 17. In an order filed on June 19, this court extended the time for plaintiff to file a reply brief to defendants' opposition. That reply brief was due on July 15.
2. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel filed April 2.
Defendants filed an opposition on May 18. In the June 19 order, this court also gave plaintiff an extension of time to file a reply brief to his motion to compel. That reply brief was also due on July 15.
3. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed June 29.
Pursuant to this court's order filed April 2, 2018, plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment motion is due twenty one days after service of the motion. (ECF No. 54 at 3 (citing Local Rule 230(1)).) In a document filed here on July 13 entitled "Pre-emptive Objection to Defendants' Expected Motion for Summary Judgment," plaintiff complains that any motion for summary judgment filed now is premature because plaintiff has outstanding motions to amend and to compel.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment was filed within the deadline set out by the Discovery and Scheduling Order, as continued by the court, and is proper. This court does intend to address plaintiff's outstanding motions before addressing the motion for summary judgment. Those motions will be considered submitted and ready for decision after plaintiff files reply briefs or the time for doing so has expired. Accordingly, this court will provide plaintiff an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment.
4. Plaintiff's Request for Library Access filed July 13
Plaintiff complains there that he is unable to access the law library due to the COVID-19 restrictions in place at Mule Creek State Prison ("MCSP"). This court recognizes that those restrictions have made it much more difficult for prisoners to research and prepare legal documents. However, the prisons, like much of the rest of California, including the federal courts, are dealing with a pandemic. At this time, this court will not second-guess MCSP's restrictions designed to keep its inmates and staff safe. This court will, however, liberally grant extensions of time that plaintiff requires to complete his work in this case.
5. Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time filed July 16
Plaintiff indicates in this motion that he is seeking to extend the time to file an opposition to defendants' "motions." It is not clear if plaintiff is referring here to defendants' motion for summary judgment or, as seems more likely, to defendants' oppositions to plaintiff's motions to amend and to compel. In any event, this court will grant plaintiff extensions of each of these deadlines.
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time is construed as a request to extend his time to file a reply brief to his motion to amend, a reply brief to his motion to compel, and an opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. That motion (ECF No. 124) is granted.
2. Within fifteen days of the filed date of this order, plaintiff shall file any reply briefs to his motions to amend and to compel.
3. The time period for plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment is continued. After the court resolves plaintiff's pending motions to amend and to compel, this court will set a deadline for the filing of plaintiff's opposition and defendants' reply.
Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for library access (ECF No. 122) be denied.
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, either party may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: July 20, 2020
/s/_________
DEBORAH BARNES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DLB:9
DB/prisoner-civil rights/hara2494.36.opp