Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06580/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06580-21/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MORRIS LEE MESTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. M. KIM, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-06580-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER CLARIFYING STATUS OF

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

(Docs. 119 and 120)

Plaintiff Morris Lee Mester (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 15, 2007, defendants

filed a motion for summary judgment, and on March 19, 2007, the court granted plaintiff a thirty-day

extension of time to file an opposition. (Docs. 100-109, 112.) On April 6, 2007, plaintiff filed what

he entitled in part an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and defendants filed

a reply on April 12, 2007. (Docs. 115, 116.) Upon review, the court determined that the

“opposition” was, in large part, a description of why plaintiff could not adequately oppose

defendants’ motion and needed additional time. (Doc. 118.) In an order filed on April 16, 2007, the

court granted plaintiff an extension of time, and notified plaintiff that if he files another opposition,

his filing of April 6 will not be considered, but if he fails to file another opposition, the court will

treat his April 6 filing as the opposition. (Id.) 

On April 19, 2007, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment,

and on April 20, 2007, plaintiff filed a notice, presumably in response to defendants’ reply to his 

///

Case 1:04-cv-06580-LJO -SMS Document 122 Filed 04/26/07 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 Plaintiff’s notice is dated April 16, 2007, and was sent to the court prior to plaintiff’s receipt of the court’s 1

order filed April 16, 2007, in which the court recognized that plaintiff’s April 6 filing was not the opposition.

2

April 6 filing, stating that his April 6 filing was not his opposition and was clearly a request for an

extension of time. (Docs. 119, 120.) 1

Accordingly, plaintiff’s opposition has now been filed and defendants may reply if they so

choose. Local Rule 78-230(m). The matter will be deemed submitted in accordance with Local Rule

78-230(m), and will be resolved in due course. By this order, the status of plaintiff’s opposition has

HEREBY BEEN CLARIFIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06580-LJO -SMS Document 122 Filed 04/26/07 Page 2 of 2