Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06193/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06193-3/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

MICHAEL ALEXANDRE PINKSTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

FIERRO, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 00 6193 REC SMS P 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S SEVENTH

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. 133.) 

 Michael Alexandre Pinkston (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On January 22, 2005, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff’s Final Status Report

Concerning Factors that have Impacted the Case . . .” Buried in this document, Plaintiff states

that he plans to have the Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment completed before

August 4, 2005, and therefore, needs an extension of time until that date. 

The Court has examined the record and notes that the pending Motion for Summary

Judgment was filed on December 8, 2004. To date Plaintiff has filed seven (7) requests for an

extension of time for numerous reasons, most of which concern circumstances faced by every

Case 1:00-cv-06193-LJO -SMS Document 134 Filed 08/12/05 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

litigant proceeding in propria persona in a prisoner civil rights action. This time, Plaintiff states

that he is having difficulty in making photocopies of his now finished Opposition. As noted in

the Court’s prior order, no further extensions would be granted but upon a showing of extremely

good cause. Plaintiff has had almost eight months in which to prepare and file an Opposition to

the Motion for Summary Judgment which includes the required photocopies. Plaintiff has

presented a myriad of excuses as to why more time is needed for formulating and filing an

Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. However, the number of requests made by Plaintiff and his

justifications belie the legitimacy of his requests. The Court has before it hundreds of cases

similar to Plaintiff’s and has never had the occasion to grant seven extensions of time to any

party to file an Opposition to a dispositive motion. Plaintiff’s repeated requests border an abuse

of the process and any delay in resolving his case is attributable solely to him. Accordingly, 

The Court will grant Plaintiff’s seventh (7th) and FINAL request for an extension of time but NO

FURTHER EXTENSION WILL BE GRANTED under ANY circumstances. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment is DUE within fifteen (15)

days of the date of service of this Order. The Court will proceed to resolution of

the pending Motion for Summary Judgment upon the expiration of these fifteen

days. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06193-LJO -SMS Document 134 Filed 08/12/05 Page 2 of 2