Opinion
20-cv-07373-HSG
03-24-2022
CHARLES W. TOOKER, Plaintiff, v. T MAK, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTNG IN PART AND DENYING IN PART EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER REQUIRING DISCOVERY RESPONSES RE: DKT. NO. 41
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, an inmate housed at Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”), has filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants CTF lieutenants Mak and Deverick, and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations (“CDCR”) appeals coordinator Lee, denied him due process with respect to his disciplinary proceedings. Dkt. Nos. 1, 6. On March 7, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to compel, and ordered Plaintiff to provide complete responses to Defendants' Request for Admissions, Set One; to defendant Deverick's Interrogatories Nos. 1-5, 8; and to Defendants' Request for Production Nos. 1-3, 6, by March 21, 2022. Dkt. No. 39. The Court also reset the briefing schedule and ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition to Defendants' summary judgment motion by April 1, 2022. Dkt. No. 39. Plaintiff has requested a sixty-day extension of time to comply with the Court's order, alleging that Defendants' requests and motions are “strategically superfluous” and “onerous and intimidating, ” and claiming that he has only been served with a proof of service, and not the summary judgment motion itself. Dkt. No. 41. Defendants have filed an informational chrono in which the Correctional Training Facility Litigation Coordinator reports that he hand-delivered the summary judgment motion, consisting of a 237 page doubled-sided document, to Plaintiff on March 21, 2022. Dkt. No. 42.
Plaintiffs request for an extension of time is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Dkt. No. 41.
Plaintiff must serve his discovery responses on Defendants by April 8, 2021. No further extensions of time will be granted to comply with his discovery obligations. The Court has reviewed the discovery requests and find that they ask straightforward questions that are within Plaintiffs knowledge and do not require additional time to research or prepare responses. The record indicates that, at the latest, Plaintiff received the summary judgment motion on March 21, 2022.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff an extension of time to May 12, 2022, to file his opposition. Defendants' reply is due within fourteen (14) days of the date the opposition is filed. Plaintiff should litigate this action promptly and in good faith. Plaintiffs letters to the Court complaining about Defendants, their pleadings, and prison conditions serve no legal purpose and are not considered by the Court.
This order terminates Dkt. No. 41.
IT IS SO ORDERED.