Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01157/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01157-39/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORIO FUNTANILLA, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-1157 LKK GGH P

vs.

KAREN KELLY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s request for extension of time to file

objections to the March 19, 2009, findings and recommendations. For the following reasons, this

request is denied.

On March 19, 2009, this court recommended that plaintiff’s motion for partial

summary judgment be denied and defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment be granted.

In the findings and recommendations, this court found that plaintiff had failed to oppose

defendants’ motion. Rather than filing an opposition addressing the merits of defendants’

motion, plaintiff opposed defendants’ motion on grounds that counsel previously appointed to

represent him should not have consented to the filing of the motion. This court found that

plaintiff’s opposition was, in essence, an unauthorized motion to strike.

/////

Case 2:02-cv-01157-JAM-CMK Document 204 Filed 05/05/09 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

2

In the pending request for extension of time, plaintiff states that he cannot file

objections because he is being denied access to his legal property. Plaintiff requests that the

court order prison officials to grant him access to his legal property.

Because plaintiff failed to oppose defendants’ motion on the merits, the only issue

he could address in his objections would be his failure to file an opposition addressing the merits

of defendants’ motion. In other words, plaintiff’s objections may not address the merits of

defendants’ motion. For these reasons, plaintiff does not require access to his legal property to

prepare his objections.

Based on the circumstances described above, plaintiff’s request for extension of

time and for access to his legal property is disingenuous.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s April 6, 2009, motion for

extension of time (no. 200) is denied.

DATED: May 5, 2009

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

fun1157.eot

Case 2:02-cv-01157-JAM-CMK Document 204 Filed 05/05/09 Page 2 of 2