Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01927/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01927-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW ALCON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. ANISE ADAMS; et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 14-1927 SI (pr)

ORDER

Plaintiff filed a "motion to reverse defendant's motion for extension of time," in which

he argues that defendant should not receive an extension of the deadline to file a dispositive

motion and that plaintiff is disadvantaged because he must use regular mail while defendant

electronically files his documents. Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. Docket # 21. Initial requests

for extensions of the deadline to file dispositive motions are routinely granted in prisoner cases,

particularly due to the not uncommon problems with service of process and the fact that

dispositive motions, including summary judgment motions, are usually scheduled to be filed just

a few months after the defendant is served with process, which is far sooner than most such

motions are scheduled in non-prisoner cases. Plaintiff has not shown any persuasive reason why

the requested extension of time should not have been granted. There is no legal support for

plaintiff's suggestion that defendant should not be allowed to investigate and should be confined

to the exhibits plaintiff has provided. See Docket # 21 at 1. Plaintiff's motion does make one

good point, i.e., that his use of regular mail may result in his opposition to an administrative

request not arriving before the court rules on it. The court will wait a few extra days on any

Case 3:14-cv-01927-SI Document 22 Filed 03/09/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

future request for extension of a deadline from defendant to give plaintiff an opportunity to be

heard on the request. The court will not, however, require defendant to confine himself to

manual filing of documents; defendant may continue to use the court's electronic filing system

and mail to plaintiff a paper copy of any document filed. 

Plaintiff also filed an objection to defendant's subpoena of his medical records. Docket

# 20. Plaintiff did not attach a copy of the subpoena, so the court cannot see to whom it is

directed or exactly what is being subpoenaed. Plaintiff's objection to the subpoena is that, if

complied with, defendant will have documents to which plaintiff does not have access. That

objection is OVERRULED. If plaintiff wants the same documents defendant is subpoenaing,

plaintiff can make a request for such documents to prison officials or (if the records are not

prison medical records) can subpoena them from the third parties who have the records. Insofar

as plaintiff wants the court to disallow access to his medical records in general, that objection

is OVERRULED. By suing the defendant for deliberate indifference to his medical needs,

plaintiff has placed his medical care at issue in this action. Defendant may subpoena plaintiff's

medical records to defend against plaintiff's claim of inadequate medical care. Plaintiff has not

shown that the subpoena asks for medical records that are too old or are unrelated to the issues

in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2015 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01927-SI Document 22 Filed 03/09/15 Page 2 of 2