Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06193/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06193-4/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 DENYING MOTION TO PROCESS

ORIGINAL OPPOSITION OR DIRECT

LITIGATION OFFICE TO MAKE

PHOTOCOPIES (Doc. 135.) 

 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 to file his Opposition, the most recent of which was granted on August 12,

Case 1:00-cv-06193-LJO -SMS Document 136 Filed 08/19/05 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

2005, giving Plaintiff until the end of the month to file his Opposition. Plaintiff stated in his

most recent request for an extension of time that he finished the Opposition and just needed to

make photocopies. Now Plaintiff contends he will not be able to make photocopies by the end of

the month and so he seeks to be allowed to file his Opposition without copies or to Order the

Litigation Office to make copies on his behalf. Plaintiff states that he does not want to request

another extension of time or have to serve the documents late “as late as August 26, 2005.” 

The Court will not grant Plaintiff’s request for an Order directing the prison to make

photocopies for him. Clearly, the Court’s last order granted him an extension of time to meet a

deadline to file his Opposition. If Plaintiff is having difficulty getting to the law library to make

photocopies, he need only follow prison procedure and demonstrate to staff that he has a pending

deadline. The Court will also not relieve Plaintiff from serving his Opposition on the opposing

party as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

This Court informed Plaintiff in its prior order that no further extensions would be

granted. Plaintiff’s repeated requests for extensions of time for circumstances that most

prisoners face on a daily basis borders on an abuse of the process and can easily be construed as

purposeful delay of the case. Plaintiff did not seem to have difficulty obtaining the necessary

photocopies to file the instant motion and serve Defendants, yet he expects the Court to find his

statement that he has no access to a photocopier credible. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff has been warned previously that

the Court will not entertain any further requests for an extension of time and will proceed with

the resolution of the case upon the expiration of the current extension. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06193-LJO -SMS Document 136 Filed 08/19/05 Page 2 of 2