Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01899/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01899-12/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

OBIE LEE CRISP, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

1:13-cv-01899-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR STAY OF ACTION AND TO EXTEND 

TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT AS UNNECESSARY 

(Docs. 43, 45)

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

' 1983. On December 28, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment contending 

Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies on the issues raised in this action 

before he filed suit. (Doc. 34.) That same day, Defendants filed a motion for protective order to 

stay this action other than on the issues of exhaustion raised in their motion. (Doc. 35.) On 

January 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a ninety-day extension of time to file his 

opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion and for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 38.) 

On January 13, 2016, three orders issued: (1) granting the ninety-day extension of time 

Plaintiff sought to file his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 40); (2) 

denying the request for appointment of counsel (Doc. 39); and (3) informing Plaintiff of the 

requirements to adequately oppose Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 41). On 

January 14, 2016, Defendants’ motion staying the action other than as related to the issue of 

exhaustion and their motion for summary judgment was granted. (Doc. 42.) 

Case 1:13-cv-01899-AWI-SKO Document 46 Filed 02/17/16 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

On January 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion (Doc. 43) to submit recently discovered 

information in support of his January 12, 2016, (Doc. 38), motion for an extension of time to file 

his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and for appointment of counsel. On

January 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a further motion for a stay in this action, or alternatively for a 

ninety-day extension of time to file his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

(Doc. 45.) 

Plaintiff has been previously granted a ninety-day extension of time to file an opposition 

to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and currently has until approximately April 13, 

2016, to do so. (See Doc. 40.) It is, therefore, not necessary to grant Plaintiff a further extension 

of time for filing his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment at this time. As 

that deadline approaches, and if Plaintiff is able to show good cause, a further extension of time 

may be granted. The Court notes, however, that Plaintiff’s recent motions are quite detailed and 

contain a number of his inmate grievances that appear related to the issues raised in this action. 

It, therefore, appears unlikely that Plaintiff will be able to show good cause to merit further 

extensions of time. Thus, Plaintiff should examine the documents he attached as exhibits to his 

most recent motions in light of the information in the Second Informational Order and begin 

working on his opposition. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to submit recently 

discovered information, filed on January 20, 2016, and his motion for stay or for further extension 

of time to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on January 25, 

2016, are denied as unnecessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01899-AWI-SKO Document 46 Filed 02/17/16 Page 2 of 2