Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02440/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02440-36/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 

SHERMAN D. MANNING, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-2440 MCE AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court are plaintiff’s motion for a sixty-day extension of time 

(ECF No. 270); motion for access to his legal property (ECF No. 273); motion for additional time 

to provide supporting documentation (ECF No. 282); and various notices regarding the alleged 

treatment of and threats against plaintiff by correctional staff and other miscellaneous issues and 

requests (ECF Nos. 275, 278, 279, 280, 281). 

 The court will do its best to address the matters before it; however, this task is made 

difficult by plaintiff’s continued insistence on filing duplicative, piecemeal documents that lack a 

caption designating the nature of the document or the relief sought. Plaintiff has been advised on 

numerous occasions that his piecemeal and duplicative filings constitute a burden on this court 

and make it impossible to respond to every issue contained in the filings. See ECF Nos. 127, 131, 

Case 2:12-cv-02440-MCE-AC Document 284 Filed 07/28/15 Page 1 of 5
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

146, 222. Plaintiff has also been warned that continuing to submit such filings would result in the 

filings being disregarded. Id. The court will therefore address only plaintiff’s most obvious 

issues. 

I. Requests for Extension of Time 

 Plaintiff’s motion for a sixty-day extension of time (ECF No. 270), motion for access to 

his legal property (ECF No. 273), and motion for additional time to provide supporting 

documentation (ECF No. 282) all essentially seek additional time to respond to defendants’ 

motions for summary judgment. 

In his motion for a sixty-day extension of time, plaintiff seeks a general extension of time 

to respond to anything filed after May 15, 2015.1

 ECF No. 270. He also specifically requests an 

additional sixty days to respond to the re-served motions for summary judgment. Id. Five days 

after the Clerk of the Court filed the motion for extension, plaintiff’s first response to defendants’ 

motions for summary judgment was filed. ECF No. 271. Plaintiff has since proceeded to file two 

additional responses to the motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 274, 281) and one of his 

miscellaneous filings also appears to contain a partial response to the motions for summary 

judgment (ECF No. 275). 

In his motion for access to his legal property, plaintiff seeks an order directing that he be 

given access to his legal property so that he can respond to the motions for summary judgment. 

ECF No. 273. The court construes this motion as a request for additional time to provide 

supporting documentation for his responses to the motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff has 

also filed a motion specifically requesting a deadline by which he must provide supporting 

documentation. ECF No. 282. Typically, supporting documentation must be submitted with the 

response to the motion for summary judgment. However, in light of plaintiff’s claims that he has 

not had access to his documents, the court will grant plaintiff’s motions and set a date by which 

he must submit any documents supporting his response to defendants’ motions for summary 

 

1

 He alleges that he needs a general extension because he has not received any orders from the 

court since the May 15, 2015 order (ECF No. 252) and requests the court send him copies of any 

subsequently issued orders. ECF No. 270. Plaintiff has since notified the court that he has 

received the orders issued by the court after May 15, 2015. ECF No. 275 at 9-10. 

Case 2:12-cv-02440-MCE-AC Document 284 Filed 07/28/15 Page 2 of 5
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 

3

judgment. Defendants’ current deadline to file their replies is vacated and their time to reply will 

not begin to run until after plaintiff has filed his supporting documentation or his time to do so 

has passed. 

Plaintiff is advised that any supplemental response included with his supporting 

documentation must be limited to explaining how the produced documents support his response 

or create a material issue of fact. Plaintiff has already filed three responses and this is not an 

opportunity to repeat arguments that have already been made. Plaintiff’s supporting documents 

must be submitted to the court as a single filing and plaintiff shall not pepper the court with 

multiple, additional filings of documents, nor shall he continue to inundate the court with 

multiple, supplemental responses to the motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff is also advised 

that once defendants have filed their replies, he is not to file a sur-reply unless he receives 

permission from the court. Failure to receive the court’s permission before filing a sur-reply will 

result in it being stricken from the record. 

In light of plaintiff’s continued allegations that he has confronted difficulties accessing his 

legal property and the delays these allegations have caused to the progression of this case, the 

Attorney General’s Office and Deputy Attorney General Elise Thorn shall work with the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to take whatever steps are 

necessary to ensure that plaintiff is given access to all of his legal property and an opportunity to 

obtain copies of any documents therein that he believes are necessary to defend against the 

defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff is reminded that he must submit all the 

evidence he believes creates a genuine issue of material fact for trial. He cannot simply state that 

he will produce the evidence at trial. 

II. Allegations of Harassment by Correctional Staff 

 Plaintiff continues to file numerous “notices” and “motions” related to his allegations that 

CDCR employees are tampering with his legal mail and property and subjecting him to various 

forms of harassment. ECF Nos. 275, 278, 279, 280, 281. The court has already addressed nearly 

identical allegations by plaintiff on several occasions (ECF Nos. 116, 146, 252, 262) and based on 

its previous findings, the court finds that plaintiff’s claims are not credible and continue to be 

Case 2:12-cv-02440-MCE-AC Document 284 Filed 07/28/15 Page 3 of 5
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 

4

unsupported. Plaintiff has been advised that his allegations will not be considered unless they are 

supported by evidence, and hearsay statements are not evidence. Id. Despite this, plaintiff 

continues to rely on hearsay and speculation to support his allegations rather than providing 

evidence, such as declarations or affidavits from the alleged witnesses.2 Simply claiming these 

individuals will testify at trial is insufficient to constitute competent evidence to support a motion. 

If plaintiff wants the court to consider witnesses’ testimony, he must provide signed declarations 

or affidavits from them. For these reasons, plaintiff’s various filings regarding the actions of 

CDCR employees (ECF Nos. 275, 278, 279, 280, 281) will be disregarded. 

III. Settlement Conference 

 In some of his most recent filings, plaintiff indicates a desire to settle this case. ECF Nos. 

280, 281. Defendants will be directed to advise the court whether they believe a settlement 

conference would be beneficial at this time. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s requests for an extension of time (ECF Nos. 270, 273, 282) are granted in 

part. Plaintiff shall have until August 27, 2015, to submit documents in support of his response to 

defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Any documents plaintiff seeks to submit must be 

filed as a single filing. 

 2. The Attorney General’s Office and Deputy Attorney General Elise Thorn shall work 

with the CDCR to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that plaintiff is given access to all 

of his legal property and an opportunity to obtain copies of any documents therein that he 

believes are necessary to defend against the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. 

 3. Defendants’ current deadline to file their replies in support of their motions for 

summary judgment is vacated. Defendants’ time to file their replies will not begin to run until 

plaintiff either files his supplemental documentation or his time for doing so expires, whichever 

occurs first. Defendants shall have fourteen days to file their replies. 

 

2

 In one document plaintiff identifies a correctional officer who is allegedly willing to testify on 

his behalf and asks that the court redact out his name prior to filing. ECF No. 281. The court 

does not provide redaction services. Documents mailed to the Clerk of the Court for filing are 

filed as they are received. 

Case 2:12-cv-02440-MCE-AC Document 284 Filed 07/28/15 Page 4 of 5
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 

5

 4. Plaintiff’s various filings regarding the actions of CDCR employees (ECF Nos. 275, 

278, 279, 280, 281) will be disregarded. 

 5. Within ten days of the filing of this order, defendants shall advise the court whether 

they believe a settlement conference in this case would be beneficial at this stage. 

DATED: July 28, 2015. 

 ________________/S/__________________ 

 ALLISON CLAIRE 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:12-cv-02440-MCE-AC Document 284 Filed 07/28/15 Page 5 of 5