Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02291/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02291-10/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DANIEL WEBSTER WRIGHT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

D. FIELDS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-2291-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants moved for summary judgment on May 19, 2016. ECF No. 20. On 

June 20, 2016, the court reminded plaintiff of his obligation to file an opposition to the motion 

and granted him an additional 21 days in which to file his response. ECF No. 22. When he failed 

to timely file an opposition, findings and recommendations were issued on July 27, 2016, 

recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with 

court orders. ECF No. 24. Since then, plaintiff has filed multiple requests for extensions of time 

and for appointment of counsel. See ECF Nos. 25, 27, 33, 35. Those extension requests were 

granted and the court also mailed plaintiff a courtesy copy of defendants’ motion. ECF Nos. 28, 

34. Plaintiff now requests a further extension of time to file his opposition and once again moves 

for appointment of counsel. ECF Nos. 37, 38. For the reasons set forth in the court’s previous 

orders, see ECF Nos. 26, 36, plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is denied. As 

Case 2:15-cv-02291-KJM-EFB Document 39 Filed 12/08/16 Page 1 of 2
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

defendants’ motion for summary judgment has been now pending for more than six months 

without a response from plaintiff, the court will grant him one final extension of time to file an 

opposition. No further extensions of time will be granted. Should plaintiff fail to timely file an 

opposition, the July 27, 2016 findings and recommendations will be submitted to the district 

judge for consideration. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request (ECF Nos. 37, 38 ) is granted and plaintiff has 30 days from the 

date this order is served to file his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment; and 

2. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 38) is denied. 

 So ordered. 

Dated: December 7, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-02291-KJM-EFB Document 39 Filed 12/08/16 Page 2 of 2