Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06580/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06580-20/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

MORRIS LEE MESTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. M. KIM, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-06580-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 115)

Plaintiff Morris Lee Mester (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 15, 2007, defendants

filed a motion for summary judgment, and on March 19, 2007, the court granted plaintiff a thirty-day

extension of time to file an opposition. On April 6, 2007, plaintiff filed what he entitled in part an

opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and defendants filed a reply on April 12,

2007. Upon review, the court has determined that the “opposition” is, in large part, a description of

why plaintiff cannot adequately oppose defendants’ motion at this time and needs additional time.

The claims in this action accrued between June 23, 2003 and March 4, 2004, and relate to

plaintiff’s hernia and the delay of and/or interference with hernia surgery. As plaintiff has been told

more than once, the court cannot and will not, in this action, issue an order aimed at addressing

plaintiff’s current conditions of confinement, including his medical care and need for pain

medication. (Docs. 86, 93, 97, 113.) There is no actual case or controversy before the court

pertaining to those issues and the court has no jurisdiction to address those issues. City of Los

Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v.

Case 1:04-cv-06580-LJO -SMS Document 118 Filed 04/16/07 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

Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58

(1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). 

The court will allow plaintiff additional time to file an opposition. Plaintiff is placed on

notice that the court will not consider two oppositions. Therefore, if plaintiff files another

opposition, his filing of April 6 will not be considered. If plaintiff fails to file another opposition,

the court will treat his April 6 filing as the opposition. If plaintiff files a new opposition, defendants

may file a new reply.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order within

which to file an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment;

2. The court will consider only one opposition to defendants’ motion;

3. If plaintiff files another opposition in compliance with this order, his filing of April

6 will not be considered by the court as an opposition; and

4. If plaintiff fails to file an opposition in compliance with this order, the court will treat

his April 6 filing as the opposition and defendants’ motion for summary judgment

will be deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06580-LJO -SMS Document 118 Filed 04/16/07 Page 2 of 2