Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03303/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03303-12/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DANIEL JESUS ARZAGA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CRAIG LOVETT, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:11-cv-3303-JAM-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On November 18, 2014, defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a 

claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On January 9, 2015, plaintiff requested an extension of time 

to respond to the motion. ECF No. 41. The court deferred ruling on that request, and instead, 

ordered defense counsel to coordinate with counsel for the California Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation to determine plaintiff’s housing status, including: (1) where plaintiff is 

currently housed; (2) if plaintiff is not currently housed at his normal institution of incarceration, 

when plaintiff is expected to be returned to that institution; and (3) whether plaintiff currently has 

access to pens, paper, his legal materials, and a law library. ECF No. 43. In response, defense 

counsel submitted a declaration stating that plaintiff is confined to the California Health Care 

Facility in Stockton for an unknown duration, and that he has access to pens, paper, and a law 

library, but that he likely does not have access to his own legal materials. ECF No. 44. 

Case 2:11-cv-03303-JAM-EFB Document 47 Filed 04/14/15 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

Thereafter, plaintiff filed another request for an extension of time to oppose the motion to 

dismiss, explaining that he still does not have access to his legal materials. ECF No. 45. 

However, plaintiff then filed another motion, styled “motion for trial . . . in response and [with] 

respect to the opposition,” which includes a request for trial and a response to the pending motion 

to dismiss. ECF No. 46. Thus, it appears that plaintiff was provided access to a copy of 

defendant’s motion to dismiss, and was able to prepare and file a response thereto. 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that (1) plaintiff’s “motion for trial . . . in response 

and [with] respect to the opposition,” (ECF No. 46) is construed as an opposition to defendant’s 

motion to dismiss and so construed, is deemed timely filed; (2) plaintiff’s requests for extensions 

of time (ECF Nos. 41, 45) are denied as moot; and (3) the Clerk shall terminate docket number 46 

and amend the docket text to reflect that the filing is plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to 

dismiss. 

DATED: April 13, 2015. 

Case 2:11-cv-03303-JAM-EFB Document 47 Filed 04/14/15 Page 2 of 2