Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00606/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00606-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AHKEEM WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIM PEDRIERO, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-00606-SKO (PC)

ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S 

LETTER, DENYING REQUESTS FOR 

RELIEF, AND DIRECTING CLERK’S 

OFFICE TO MAIL COPY OF DOCKET

(Doc. 96)

Plaintiff Akheem Williams (“Plaintiff”), a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 17, 2012. This 

action is proceeding against Defendants Garcia, Valdez, Cortez, Silva, Castro, Day, Stepp, Collier, 

Torres, Delia, Jr., and Tordsen (“Defendants”) for use of excessive physical force, in violation of 

the United States Constitution. 

On March 20, 2014, the Clerk’s Office filed a letter received from Plaintiff. Although 

Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to file a response in light of his incarceration, it is not clear 

what “response” Plaintiff is contemplating. 

The Court issued six orders on March 18, 2014. To the extent Plaintiff is seeking an 

extension of time to file replies to Defendants’ oppositions to his motion to compel and Freedom 

of Information Act motion, his request was not timely filed and the motions had been submitted 

upon the record when the Court issues its rulings on March 18, 2014. Local Rule 230(l). 

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SKO Document 97 Filed 03/24/14 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Additionally, any late reply by Plaintiff would not alter the rulings in any event, because Plaintiff 

did not meet his initial burden as the party moving for relief. Thus, in sum, neither good cause nor 

excusable neglect has been show, and the Court declines to grant Plaintiff an extension of time to 

file replies. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b); Local Rule 144. 

To the extent Plaintiff is seeking an extension of time to respond to Defendants’ request for 

reasonable expenses, as he was directed to do by order filed December 4, 2013, Plaintiff’s

response is long overdue and the Court has issued its ruling. Plaintiff’s bare statement that he is in 

jail does not suffice to demonstrate good cause to allow Plaintiff to file a late response nor has 

Plaintiff shown excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b); Local Rule 144. Assuming application of 

the mailbox rule in light of Plaintiff’s incarceration, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time 

was filed on March 17, 2014. Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff’s 

response to the order in question, however, was due on January 6, 2014, inclusive of three days for 

mailing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). 

Plaintiff also requests a transfer to the Tulare County Jail. The Court does not have 

jurisdiction to issue any rulings regarding Plaintiff’s present incarceration and his request is 

denied. See Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009); 

Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Finally, while the Court notes Plaintiff’s assertion that he is at the Kings County Jail, 

Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address and he failed to include his jail identification 

number in his letter. Mail without identification numbers is routinely returned by jails and 

prisons. For this reason, the Court will not change Plaintiff’s address to the Kings County Jail at 

this time. Plaintiff bears the burden of notifying the Court of his address change and including in 

the filing all the information necessary to ensure he receives his mail. Local Rule 183(b).

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SKO Document 97 Filed 03/24/14 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s letter is deemed ADDRESSED and his requests for 

relief are DENIED. As a courtesy, the Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff s copy of 

the docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SKO Document 97 Filed 03/24/14 Page 3 of 3