Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00184/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00184-2/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

On December 19, 2006, plaintiff filed what appears to be a copy of said motion.

2

The motion to compel includes a request for monetary sanctions.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OTIS THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

IMAM ABDUL MALIK SAAFIR, et

al.,

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

No. C 06-0184 MMC (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR ENLARGEMENT OF

TIME; STAYING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

VACATING DEADLINE FOR

OPPOSITION; SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO

COMPEL; INSTRUCTIONS TO

CLERK

(Docket Nos. 25 & 26)

On January 11, 2006, plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas

Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Imam Abdul Malik Saafir (“Saafir”), Sergeant M. J. Kircher

(“Kircher”), and Captain G. Ponder (“Ponder”), all SVSP officials, alleging they denied him

access to “Jumah” religious services mandated by his Muslim faith. On November 27, 2006,

defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On December 8, 2006,1

 plaintiff filed a

request for an enlargement of time within which to file his opposition. Specifically, plaintiff

seeks an extension until a date after the Court has ruled on his motion to compel discovery,

which motion was filed November 9, 2006.2

 Good cause appearing, the Court will stay the

motion for summary judgment until the motion to compel is resolved. 

Case 3:06-cv-00184-MMC Document 27 Filed 01/11/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Court notes that plaintiff appears to be able to make photocopies at this point, as

evidenced by his filing of copies of the same motion on December 8 and 19, 2006.

2

Defendants have not responded to plaintiff’s motion to compel because they were not

served with a copy. In a declaration attached to that motion, plaintiff explains that he did not

serve a copy upon defendants because SVSP officials would not allow him to make copies. 

He requests that the Court mail a copy of the motion to defendants or, alternatively, that the

Court return the motion to him and direct SVSP officials to allow him to copy it for purposes

of service. After reviewing the motion, the Court has determined that a response from

defendant is necessary in order to resolve the motion. In light of this determination, as well

as plaintiff’s allegation that he has been prevented from providing defendant with a copy, and

the Court’s interest in avoiding delay, the Court, in this particular instance, will direct the

Clerk to send a copy of the motion in question to defendants’ counsel. Plaintiff may not rely

on the Clerk to serve copies of his motions and other filings in the future, but instead must

perform the service himself.3

For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby orders as follows:

1. The Clerk shall mail to defendants’ counsel, the California Attorney General, a

copy of plaintiff’s November 9, 2006 Declaration, the motion to compel attached thereto and

all other attachments thereto.

2. On or before February 1, 2007, defendants shall file an opposition to

plaintiff’s motion; plaintiff may file a reply to defendants’ opposition within 14 days of the

date the opposition is filed. 

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is stayed until further order of the

Court, and the current deadline for the filing of plaintiff’s opposition thereto is VACATED. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 25 and 26. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 11, 2007 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00184-MMC Document 27 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 2