Randall v. McDonald

Full title: JERALD RANDALL, Plaintiff, v. M.C. McDONALD, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Feb 3, 2011

No. 2: 09-cv-2765 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2011)

Opinion

No. 2: 09-cv-2765 KJN P.

February 3, 2011

ORDER

KENDALL NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are three motions for injunctive relief filed by plaintiff.

In the motions for injunctive relief filed December 23, 2010, and January 21, 2011, plaintiff alleged that prison officials at High Desert State Prison ("HDSP") were harassing him in retaliation for pursuing the instant action. On January 31, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address indicating that he has been transferred to California State Prison-Corcoran ("Corcoran"). Because plaintiff is no longer housed at HDSP, his December 23, 2010 and January 21, 2010 motions for injunctive relief are moot. See Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975).

In the motion for injunctive relief filed January 31, 2011, plaintiff alleges that on January 20, 2011, he was transferred to Corcoran. Plaintiff alleges that since his arrival at Corcoran, he has not been granted access to his legal property. Plaintiff requests that the court order prison officials at Corcoran to provide him with access to his legal property.¹

1 Although styled as a motion for injunctive relief, it is actually reviewed as a motion for a protective order.

It is the court's experience that following a transfer to a different institution, prisoners often experience delays in receiving their legal property. For this reason, plaintiff's January 31, 2011 motion for injunctive relief is denied without prejudice. If plaintiff has not received access to his legal property by the time he receives the instant order, he may refile his motion for injunctive relief.

Plaintiff's January 31, 2011 motion also seeks an extension of time to respond to defendants' December 3, 2010 motion to dismiss. Good cause appearing, plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss is due within twenty-eight days of the date of this order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief (Dkt. Nos. 26, 28, 30) are denied;

2. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 30) is granted; and plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss is due within twenty-eight days of the date of this order.

DATED: February 2, 2011