Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05557/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05557-1/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

CHARLES SINGLETON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MORALES, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 5557 REC LJO P 

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR AN

EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. 31.) 

 Charles Singleton (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

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

On July 19, 2005, Plaintiff moved for an extension of time so that he could do more legal

research in order to respond to the Court’s most recent order. 

On December 7, 2004, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the action pursuant to Rule

12(b) for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Local Rule 78-230(c) provides

that the time for filing an Opposition to the granting of any motion be “personally served on

opposing counsel not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the hearing date or mailed . . . not

less than seventeen (17) days preceding the hearing date.” Local Rule 78-230(c). In this case,

Plaintiff did not file an Opposition to the Motion. Thus, on June 16, 2005, the Court issued an

Order directing Plaintiff to file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition as required by the

Case 1:03-cv-05557-REC-LJO Document 32 Filed 07/26/05 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

Local Rules. As noted above, Plaintiff moved for an extension of time to file his Opposition so

that he can conduct further research. Plaintiff states that his law library access is limited, that he

is uneducated in the law, and that he needs the time in light of the Supreme Court’s most recent

opinion stating that state prisons place a burden on religious exercise. 

The Court will grant Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time. However, no further

extensions will be granted. The Motion filed by Defendants is based on Plaintiff’s failure to

exhaust administrative remedies with respect to Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendant Perez.

Thus, an Appropriate response to the Motion should address whether or not Plaintiff did exhaust

his administrative remedies and not the Supreme Court’s most recent opinion on religious

freedoms in the state prisons. In addition, the Court notes that this Motion was filed by

Defendants in December of 2004. Thus, Plaintiff has had more than six months to formulate a

response. Although the Court will grant Plaintiff a thirty day extension of time to file his

Opposition, no further extensions will be granted but upon a showing of extremely good cause. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for an Extension of time is GRANTED; 

2. The Opposition is due no later than thirty (30) days from the date of service of this

order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05557-REC-LJO Document 32 Filed 07/26/05 Page 2 of 2