Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02938/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02938-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK ROBERT QUIROZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

 JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-2938 JF (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

OPPOSITION; ADDRESSING PENDING

MOTIONS

(Docket Nos. 16, 17, 36 & 38)

Plaintiff has filed ex-parte motion for an extension of time to file his opposition to

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Good cause appearing, Plaintiff's ex-parte motion for an

extension of time (docket no. 38) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his opposition no later

than July 10, 2008. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after

Plaintiff’s opposition has been filed. 

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 16) is denied without

prejudice for lack of exceptional circumstances. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525

(9th Cir. 1997); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v.

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Plaintiff filed a motion (docket no. 17) requesting the Court to issue an order directing

the Attorney General to locate outstanding defendants Millionan and Dr. Astorga so the U.S.

Marshal can complete service. For Defendant Millionan, the notation in the Remarks section

Case 5:05-cv-02938-JF Document 42 Filed 06/10/08 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

Order Granting Extension of time to File Opposition; Other Motions

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.05\Quiroz2938.eot-oppo&motions.wpd

2

of the unexecuted summons says: “The subject is not known at the facility.” (Docket No.

13.) For Defendant Astorga, the notation in the Remarks section of the unexecuted summons

says: “Subject has retired from the facility with no forwarding address.” (Docket No. 12.) It

is Plaintiff’s responsibility to provide accurate addresses for Defendants so they can be

served by the United States Marshal. Defendants Millionan and Astorga are not where

Plaintiff said they are as Millionan is not known at the facility and Astorga appears to have

retired and is no longer employed by the California Department of Correction. As such, it is

not incumbent upon the Attorney General’s Office to locate these Defendants and provide

Plaintiff with their addresses. Accordingly, the Court will not order the Attorney General’s

Office to provide further information regarding the whereabouts of Defendant Astorga. 

Plaintiff's motion (docket no. 36) requesting the Court to issue an order directing the

Attorney General to locate outstanding defendants is DENIED. 

If Plaintiff can locate Defendants Millionan and Astorga, the Court again will order

the marshal’s office to serve them. Failure to locate them may result in their dismissal

without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 

Defendant’s motion for a stay of discovery (docket no. 36) is GRANTED because it is

well-settled that a stay of discovery should be granted until the threshold question of

qualified immunity is settled. See Crawford-El. V. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL

 United States District Judge

6/2/08

Case 5:05-cv-02938-JF Document 42 Filed 06/10/08 Page 2 of 2