Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01798/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01798-20/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

KEITH M. CASSELLS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1798 FCD EFB P

vs.

D. MEHTA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on the April 25, 2005, amended complaint. 

Currently pending before the court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which plaintiff

has opposed. Defendants have replied to plaintiff’s opposition. Plaintiff has filed two identical

requests for an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’ reply. He also seeks leave

to correct any deficiencies in his opposition. For the reasons explained below, these requests

must be denied.

The court first considers the request for additional time to file an opposition to

defendants’ reply. Once a party files a motion, the non-moving parties may file an opposition. 

L. R. 78-230(m). The moving party may reply to the opposition, and thereafter the matter is

deemed submitted. Id. Thus, the Local Rules do not authorize a non-moving party, such as 

Case 2:04-cv-01798-FCD-EFB Document 97 Filed 06/28/07 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

plaintiff, to respond to a reply. This court cannot grant time to file an unauthorized paper. 

Plaintiff’s request for time to file an opposition to defendant’s reply on summary judgment must

be denied.

Plaintiff’s request to correct his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment

also is devoid of merit. In his request, plaintiff asserts that he requires “30 days to correct any

serious deficiencies” in his opposition, and he asks “for direction from the court as, [sic] plaintiff

is ignorant of the law, not versed in law whatsoever and having difficulty in representing himself

pro se in this litigation for several reasons.” Plaintiff does not identify a specific deficiency or

demonstrate that any part of his opposition requires supplemental briefing. Rather, it appears

that he wants the court effectively to act as counsel. This the court cannot do. In the case of a

prisoner representing himself in civil rights litigation, the Ninth Circuit requires District Courts

to give basic advice about the minimum requirements for opposing a motion for summary

judgment. Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc); Klingele v.

Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-412 (9th Cir. 1988). On October 5, 2004, the court informed

plaintiff of these requirements. The court cannot give plaintiff advice beyond this. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s request must be denied.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s two September 13, 2006, requests for additional time to oppose defendants’

reply are denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s September 14, 2006, request for an extension of time to correct deficiencies

in his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied.

Dated: June 28, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-01798-FCD-EFB Document 97 Filed 06/28/07 Page 2 of 2