From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

King v. McDonald

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 5, 2013
2:10-cv-2797 JAM DAD P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2013)

Opinion


JESSE STEPHEN KING, Plaintiff, v. MIKE McDONALD, et al., Defendants. No. 2:10-cv-2797 JAM DAD P United States District Court, E.D. California. December 5, 2013

          ORDER

          DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action. Judgment was entered in this action on July 11, 2013. On October 15, 2013, this court issued findings and recommendations recommending that a document filed by plaintiff on July 30, 2013 be construed as a motion for relief from judgment and, so construed, that the motion be denied. The parties were granted fourteen days in which to file and serve objections to those findings and recommendations. On October 28, 2013, plaintiff filed a document styled as a request for an inquiry into the status of his legal property. (ECF No. 112.) By order filed November 7, 2013 (ECF No. 113), defendants were directed to file and serve a response to plaintiff's request. After receiving an extension of time to do so, defendants filed their response on November 25, 2013 (ECF No. 119).

         With their response, defendants present evidence that four boxes of personal property were transferred with plaintiff from High Desert State Prison to the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (CSATF), and that plaintiff has subsequently received two additional boxes of property. Based upon defendants' response it appears that no further relief for plaintiff is required.

         Plaintiff has filed two additional motions with the court, one for oral argument (ECF No. 116), and one styled "Reconsideration for a Video Hook-Up" (ECF No. 118). Both motions contain additional argument from plaintiff concerning his allegation that he has been deprived of access to his legal materials. Neither motion is sufficient to establish that plaintiff is currently without access to his legal materials needed to respond to the findings and recommendations issued by this court on October 15, 2013.

         In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's October 28, 2013 request for court order (ECF No. 112) is denied;

2. Plaintiff's November 18, 2013 motion (ECF No. 116) is denied;

3. Plaintiff's November 20, 2013 motion (ECF No. 118) is denied;

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to reserve a copy of the October 15, 2013 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 111) on plaintiff;

5. Plaintiff is granted fourteen days from the date of this order in which to file and serve objections to the October 15, 2013 findings and recommendations; and

6. No further extensions of time will be granted for this purpose.


Summaries of

King v. McDonald

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 5, 2013
2:10-cv-2797 JAM DAD P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2013)
Case details for

King v. McDonald

Case Details

Full title:JESSE STEPHEN KING, Plaintiff, v. MIKE McDONALD, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Dec 5, 2013

Citations

2:10-cv-2797 JAM DAD P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2013)