Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02068/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02068-12/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Alberto Villescas is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to the 

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 34; Local Rule 302.

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion entitled “Motion to supplement the record 

and order,” filed October 19, 2015. Plaintiff references case number 2:15-cv-01861-TLN-KJN 

(pending in the Sacramento Division of this Court), and submits that exhibits and an inmate appeal 

dated 10/05/2015 was filed as evidence of retaliatory interference with legal mail by staff. The Court 

takes judicial notice (Fed. R. Evid. 201) of the record in case number 2:15-cv-01861-TLN-KJN P, 

Alberto Villescas v. Rafael Miranda, et al., in which Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary 

restraining order relating to the denial of certain medical treatment and accommodations. (2:15-cv01861-TLN-KJN P, ECF No. 11.) The Court ordered the Attorney General’s office to respond to 

ALBERTO VILLESCAS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M.T. DOTSON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-02068-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD AS 

UNNECESSARY

[ECF No. 60]

Case 1:12-cv-02068-SAB Document 61 Filed 10/21/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiff’s motion, and the motion for temporary restraining is still pending before the Court. (Id., 

ECF No. 14.) 

With regard to the instant case, Plaintiff submits that a copy of an extension of time (served 

September 28, 2015) was not sent out of his institution to be filed in this case. However, Plaintiff is 

advised that the Court received and filed a motion for extension of time, with a proof of service dated 

September 28, 2015, on October 2, 2015. (ECF No. 58.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an 

extension of time on October 5, 2015, and Plaintiff was given thirty (30) additional days to file an 

opposition to Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 59.) Plaintiff’s 

opposition is presently due on or before November 4, 2015. Accordingly, because the Court received 

Plaintiff’s extension of time referenced in his present motion, Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the 

record is DENIED as unnecessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 20, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-02068-SAB Document 61 Filed 10/21/15 Page 2 of 2