Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00487/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00487-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Eastern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRADY K. ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JAMES A. YATES, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

No. C 08-00487 WHA (PR) 

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFF

SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED ACCESS

TO TYPEWRITER OR OTHER

WRITING ASSISTANCE FOR

PURPOSES OF OPPOSING SUMMARY

JUDGMENT MOTION; GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME

(Docket No. 30)

On March 10, 2008, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at Pleasant Valley

State Prison (“PVSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thereafter, the Court found the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint, when

liberally construed, state the following constitutionally cognizable claims for relief against

prison officials at PVSP: unlawful conditions of confinement stemming from plaintiff’s

being housed in a cell with a “violent psychopathic prisoner,” the denial of adequate medical

care, and improper interference with plaintiff’s outgoing legal mail. (Order, filed May 11,

2009, at 2:17-3:11.) The Court ordered the complaint served and directed defendants to file

a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to plaintiff’s

cognizable claims. 

On February 8, 2010, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. According

to the scheduling order in the Court’s order of service, plaintiff was required to file his

opposition thereto within thirty days of the date the summary judgment motion was filed. 

Now pending before the Court is plaintiff’s request for an “open ended extension of time” to

Case 1:08-cv-00487-WHA Document 31 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Eastern District of California

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

file opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (Docket No. 30 at 2:25-26.) 

Specifically, plaintiff states in request that, due to complications from strokes, he is unable

to write for himself and he does not have access to a typewriter because defendants

destroyed his typewriter in retaliation for plaintiff’s having filed the instant action.

The Court will not grant plaintiff an unlimited extension of time to file his opposition

to the motion for summary judgment. This case has now been pending for two years and it

is not in the interest of justice to extend the matter indefinitely. 

Accordingly, in order to resolve as expeditiously as possible the matter of plaintiff’s

ability to file his opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the Court hereby

DIRECTS defendants to show cause, within ten (10) days of the date this order is filed, why

plaintiff should not be provided with access to a typewriter or other writing assistance to

enable him to prepare his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file his opposition to the motion for

summary judgement is hereby GRANTED until the Court issues a new scheduling order. 

This order terminates Docket No. 30.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 17, 2010

_____________________________

WILLIAM H. ALSUP

United States District Judge

Case 1:08-cv-00487-WHA Document 31 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 2