Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02313/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02313-10/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

 Although plaintiff contends defendant requested a second extension of time to file a 1

motion for summary judgment “simply to waste the court’s time,” this court found good cause

for the request and granted defendant’s request. (May 18, 2006 Order.)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES WHITTENBERG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2313 FCD JFM P

vs.

LT. L. ROLL,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 22, 2006 plaintiff filed a document entitled ‘motion for

judgment.” On June 2, 2006, defendant filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion, which

defendant construed as a motion for default judgment. 

In his motion, plaintiff asks the court to enter judgment in his favor because he

believes counsel for defendant has unreasonably delayed this case. Plaintiff has not 1

demonstrated good cause for the entry of default judgment against defendant. Plaintiff has also

failed to meet the requirements of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure such that his

Case 2:04-cv-02313-FCD-JFM Document 64 Filed 06/16/06 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

2

motion cannot be construed as a motion for summary judgment. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d

952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1035 (1999); Klingele v. Eikenberry,

849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff’s motion will be denied without prejudice. 

On May 31, 2006, plaintiff renewed his request for the appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff’s previous requests were filed on December 22, 2004, March 17, 2005, and July 12,

2005. All requests were denied. In light of those orders, the plaintiff’s May 31, 2006 request

will be denied.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s May 22, 2006 motion is denied without prejudice.

2. Plaintiff’s May 31, 2006 motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 

DATED: June 15, 2006.

001;whit2313.den 

Case 2:04-cv-02313-FCD-JFM Document 64 Filed 06/16/06 Page 2 of 2