Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02513/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02513-6/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

DAVID HENRY CURRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL 

GROUP, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-2513 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s claims 

that defendants were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious needs by refusing to provide an 

extra mattress and failing to provide adequate pain medication. On December 20, 2019, 

defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On January 29, 2020, plaintiff was directed to 

show cause why the motion should not be granted based on plaintiff’s failure to file an 

opposition. On February 18, 2020, plaintiff filed a two-page opposition stating he had transferred 

to California Medical Facility on December 19, 2019, and was unaware defendants had filed a 

motion. Plaintiff asks the court to advise him whether or not his opposition is adequate.

First, plaintiff is reminded of his responsibility to timely inform the court and counsel for 

defendants as to any change of address. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at 

the record address of the party is fully effective. 

Case 2:18-cv-02513-KJM-KJN Document 28 Filed 03/25/20 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

Second, plaintiff’s two-page opposition is not adequate. On December 13, 2018, plaintiff 

was informed of his responsibilities in opposing a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 7.) 

Plaintiff is granted an extension of time to file an amended opposition in light of Rand v. 

Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). 

Third, plaintiff’s legal mail should be forwarded to his new prison. Because it is unclear 

whether or not plaintiff has now received defendants’ motion, the court will not order re-service 

of such motion at this time. However, if plaintiff has not yet received the motion for summary 

judgment by the time he receives the instant order, plaintiff shall ask counsel for defendants to 

provide plaintiff with another copy of the motion.1 The court is granting plaintiff a longer

extension of time to oppose the motion to allow for such re-service. 

Accordingly, for all of the above reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff is granted sixty days in which to file an amended opposition to defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve plaintiff a copy of the December 13, 2018 

order (ECF No. 7) along with the instant order.

Dated: March 24, 2020

/curr2513.fb

1

 Of course, counsel for defendants is not prohibited from re-serving their motion now to avoid 

any further delay.

Case 2:18-cv-02513-KJM-KJN Document 28 Filed 03/25/20 Page 2 of 2