Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03414/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03414-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH DUANE ARLINE, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. GOWER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-3414 WBS KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. On November 25, 2013, plaintiff 

filed a motion for injunctive relief seeking access to his legal materials so that he could oppose 

defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On December 6, 2013, plaintiff filed a notice stating 

that he was released from administrative segregation and received all the withheld legal materials. 

Plaintiff asked the court not to take action “because the matter [has] been resolved.” (ECF No. 49 

at 1.) In addition, plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion for summary judgment on December 

23, 2013. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is moot, and is denied without prejudice.1

 

1

 On December 30, 2013, plaintiff filed a reply to defendants’ response to the motion for 

injunctive relief, claiming that despite the return of his legal materials, plaintiff suffered actual 

injury because his civil action, Case No. 1:11-cv-0410 LJO SAB, was “denied.” (ECF No. 56 at 

1-2.) To the extent plaintiff contends he has suffered impaired access to the courts, he must raise 

such a claim in a new action after he has exhausted his administrative remedies. Moreover, the 

court notes that Case No. 11-cv-0410 LJO SAB remains open; plaintiff filed a second amended 

complaint on December 11, 2013. 

Case 2:11-cv-03414-WBS-KJN Document 57 Filed 01/03/14 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

Defendants have filed a motion for extension of time to file a reply to plaintiff’s 

opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Good cause appearing, defendants’ 

request is granted.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s November 25, 2013 motion (ECF No. 46) is denied without prejudice; 

2. Defendants’ December 30, 2013 motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 55) is 

granted; and 

3. Defendants shall file their reply on or before January 6, 2014.

Dated: January 2, 2014

/arli3414.eot

Case 2:11-cv-03414-WBS-KJN Document 57 Filed 01/03/14 Page 2 of 2