From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lal v. Felker

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 17, 2013
2:07-cv-2060-KJM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2013)

Opinion


AZHAR LAL, Plaintiff, v. FELKER, et al., Defendants. No. 2:07-cv-2060-KJM-EFB P United States District Court, E.D. California. December 17, 2013

          ORDER

          EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Several miscellaneous motions are pending before the court.

         First, plaintiff requests an extension of time to file objections to the August 16, 2013 findings and recommendations. ECF No. 202. Plaintiff's objections were received by the court on September 16, 2013, and were considered by the district judge on September 30, 2013. ECF Nos. 199, 200. Accordingly, plaintiff's request for an extension of time must be denied as moot.

         Second, defendants request leave to file a second dispositive motion concerning plaintiff's retaliation claims, and have concurrently filed a second dispositive motion. ECF Nos. 203, 204. Plaintiff does not oppose defendants' request for leave to file a second dispositive motion, but does seek additional time within which to prepare an opposition. ECF No. 212. Good cause appearing, defendants' request for leave to file a second dispositive motion will be granted. In addition, plaintiff shall have 60 days from the date of this order to file his response.

         Plaintiff also requests a court order directing the librarian to allow him make copies in excess of 50 pages. ECF No. 212. After making that request, plaintiff filed a document with the court that was 72 pages in length. See ECF No. 213. Thus, a court order does not appear to be necessary at this time and plaintiff's request will be denied. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must comply with applicable prison procedures for obtaining copies needed for this litigation. The court also notes, the volume of exhibits submitted with defendants' motion should not be a barrier to plaintiff's ability to file an opposition brief (including exhibits), that does not exceed 50 pages in length. Plaintiff need not reproduce copies of defendants' exhibits with his opposition. Rather, plaintiff may rely on any previously submitted exhibits so long as he adequately cites to where those exhibits can be located in the record.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time (ECF No. 202) is denied as moot.

2. Defendants' request for leave to file a second dispositive motion concerning plaintiff's retaliation claims (ECF No. 203) is granted.

3. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time (ECF No. 212) is granted in that his response to the motion for summary judgment shall be filed within 60 days from the date of this order.

4. Plaintiff's request for a court order authorizing copies in excess of 50 pages (ECF No. 212) is denied.


Summaries of

Lal v. Felker

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 17, 2013
2:07-cv-2060-KJM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2013)
Case details for

Lal v. Felker

Case Details

Full title:AZHAR LAL, Plaintiff, v. FELKER, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Dec 17, 2013

Citations

2:07-cv-2060-KJM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2013)