Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02583/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02583-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONARD C. NIXON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2583 MCE PAN P

vs.

PENNER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed his third request for an extension

of time to file and serve an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff

states the prison in which he is incarcerated is on lock down and he will be unable to file an

opposition until the prison is no longer locked down. Plaintiff further states he has no idea when

that will be.

Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on February 8, 2006. By

order filed March 17, 2006, plaintiff was reminded of his obligation to oppose the motion and

granted thirty days in which to do so. On April 21, 2006, plaintiff was granted an additional

thirty days in which to file his opposition. On May 24, 2006, plaintiff was granted an additional 

/////

Case 2:03-cv-02583-MCE -PAN Document 29 Filed 07/19/06 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

2

thirty days in which to file an opposition. Plaintiff was advised at that time that no further

extensions of time would be granted.

Although plaintiff claims he cannot file his opposition because the prison is on

lock down, plaintiff has not specifically identified what he requires to prepare his opposition. 

Plaintiff has not affirmatively stated that he either has no access to his legal materials or that he

has no access to the law library. Plaintiff has failed to adequately demonstrate why he cannot

timely file an opposition to the motion, particularly in light of the four months that have elapsed

since the filing of the motion. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for extension of time will be

denied. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's June 2, 2006 request for an extension of time is denied; and

2. Plaintiff shall file and serve an opposition to defendants’ February 8, 2006

motion for summary judgment within twenty days from the date of this order. Defendants’ reply,

if any, shall be filed seven days thereafter. No further extensions of time will be granted.

DATED: July 17, 2006.

/mp:001; nixo2583.36(3)

Case 2:03-cv-02583-MCE -PAN Document 29 Filed 07/19/06 Page 2 of 2