Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06324/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06324-5/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

EDWARD VARELLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DERRAL ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:CV-03-6324-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF THIRTY

DAYS TO FILE RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANT’S QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

ARGUMENT

(Doc. 33 and 51)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

SEND PLAINTIFF COURTESY COPY OF

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. 33) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURT

ORDER ADDRESSING CONFISCATION OF

LEGAL PROPERTY

(Doc. 53) 

Plaintiff Edward Varella (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant Beltran filed a motion

to dismiss on March 17, 2005. On September 21, 2005, plaintiff filed his second request for an

extension of time to file an opposition. Defendant opposed the request on September 27, 2005. On

October 19, 2005, the court granted plaintiff one final thirty-day extension of time to file an

opposition to the motion and warned plaintiff that no further extensions would be granted. On

October 25, 2005, plaintiff filed an untimely reply to defendant’s opposition to his request for an

extension of time, and a motion seeking a court order requiring the return of his legal property. 

Case 1:03-cv-06324-LJO -GSA Document 56 Filed 11/21/05 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff’s reply is untimely and the issue concerning his second request for an extension of

time was addressed by the court in its order of October 19, 2005. In an abundance of caution, the

court will allow plaintiff thirty days to respond to defendants’ argument that they are entitled to

dismissal based on qualified immunity. It is not necessary for plaintiff to address any other argument

set forth in defendants’ motion. If plaintiff does not file an opposition addressing defendant’s

motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds within thirty days, the motion will be deemed

submitted and the court will issue its Findings and Recommendations. No extensions of time for

compliance with this order will be granted. 

Plaintiff’s motion for a court order relating to his seized legal property is denied. This action

is proceeding against defendants Beltran and Serman for acting with deliberate indifference to

plaintiff’s safety on November 9, 2001. Issues concerning plaintiff’s access to the courts via

jailhouse lawyers and the handling of cell searches and property confiscation are not at issue in this

action. Therefore, the court does not have jurisdiction over those matters or over prison staff

involved in those matters. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 (1968); Zepeda v. United States

Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985); Rivera v. Freeman, 469 F. 2d 1159,

1162-63 (9th Cir. 1972). Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file a response

to defendant’s argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity;

2. If plaintiff does not file a response to defendant’s qualified immunity argument

within thirty days, the motion to dismiss will be deemed submitted and the court will

issue its Findings and Recommendations;

3. No extensions of time for compliance with this order will be granted;

4. The Clerk’s Office is directed to send plaintiff a courtesy copy of defendant’s motion

to dismiss, filed on March 17, 2005; and

///

///

///

Case 1:03-cv-06324-LJO -GSA Document 56 Filed 11/21/05 Page 2 of 3
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

5. Plaintiff’s motion for a court order addressing the confiscation of his legal property

is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06324-LJO -GSA Document 56 Filed 11/21/05 Page 3 of 3