Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01737/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01737-11/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIKE BAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. BEAM, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01737-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION 

FOR COURT TO ORDER CDCR TO 

RETURN PLAINTIFF’S LEGAL 

PROPERTY

(ECF No. 56)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO 

TERMINATE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

COURT TO ORDER CDCR TO RETURN 

PLAINTIFF’S LEGAL PROPERTY

(ECF No. 50)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 

(ECF Nos. 54, 55)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

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

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds on Plaintiff’s second 

amended complaint as follows: (1) against Defendants Vogel, Caldwell, and Cervantes for 

deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (2) against Defendants Vasquez, 

Vogel, Beam, Cuevas, Caldwell, Cervantes, Huerta, Benevidas, Goree, Cribbs, Diaz, Jarvis, and 

Case 1:16-cv-01737-AWI-BAM Document 57 Filed 03/11/20 Page 1 of 4
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

Pacillas for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; (3) against Defendants Vasquez, 

Vogel, Beam, Cuevas, Caldwell, Cervantes, Huerta, and Benevidas for conspiracy; (4) against 

Defendants Vogel, Beam, Cuevas, Caldwell, Cervantes, Huerta, and Benevidas for denial of 

access to the courts in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments; (5) against Defendants 

Vogel, Beam, Cuevas, Caldwell, Cervantes, Huerta, and Benevidas for a state law claim for 

property deprivation under California law; (6) against Defendants Beam, Huerta, and Benevidas 

for violation of California Civil Code § 52.1; (7) against Defendant Vogel for a state law claim 

for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (8) against Defendants Vogel, Caldwell, and 

Cervantes for a state law claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. (ECF No. 33.)

Currently before the Court are several motions and filings, which require resolution, as 

explained below.

I. Plaintiff’s Notice of Withdrawal of Motion for Court to Order CDCR to Return 

Plaintiff’s Legal Property

On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for court to order CDCR to return Plaintiff’s 

legal property. (ECF No. 50.) Specifically, Plaintiff requested that the Court order CDCR to 

transfer Plaintiff’s legal property from Mule Creek State Prison, the prison where he was 

previously housed, to California State Prison, Corcoran, the prison where he is currently housed. 

(Id.)

However, on March 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice to withdraw his January 14, 2020 

motion for the Court to order CDCR to return his legal property. (ECF No. 56.) Plaintiff states 

that, since he was issued the legal property necessary for this action on or about February 13, 

2020, his motion for an order compelling CDCR to return his legal property has become moot. 

(Id.) 

While Defendants have not had an opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s notice of 

withdrawal, no response is necessary because Defendants are not prejudiced by the withdrawal of 

Plaintiff’s motion.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s January 14, 2020 motion for the Court to order CDCR to return 

Plaintiff’s legal property is withdrawn as moot. 

Case 1:16-cv-01737-AWI-BAM Document 57 Filed 03/11/20 Page 2 of 4
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

II. Plaintiff’s Two Motions for Extension of Time to File Opposition

On February 13, 2020, Defendants Beam, Benevidas, Caldwell, Cervantes, Cribbs, 

Cuevas, Diaz, Goree, Huerta, Jarvis, Pacillas, Vasquez, and Vogel filed a motion for summary 

judgment and a motion for protective order. (ECF Nos. 52, 53.)

On March 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file an opposition to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and a motion for extension of time to file an 

opposition to Defendants’ motion for protective order. (ECF Nos. 54, 55.) Plaintiff asserts that 

he needs additional time to file oppositions to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and 

motion for protective order because he just recently received the legal property that he was 

without for approximately four months and because he has been unable to complete the discovery 

that he believes is necessary to file an opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion. (Id.)

Having considered the request, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause 

for a 30-day extension of time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions for an

extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and 

Defendants’ motion for protective order, (ECF Nos. 54, 55.), are granted. 

III. Order

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to order CDCR to return Plaintiff’s legal property, 

(ECF No. 50), is WITHDRAWN;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 50;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file opposition to Defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment, (ECF No. 54), is GRANTED;

4. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file opposition to Defendants’ motion 

for protective order, (ECF No. 55), is GRANTED; and

///

///

///

///

Case 1:16-cv-01737-AWI-BAM Document 57 Filed 03/11/20 Page 3 of 4
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

5. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 52), and an 

opposition to Defendants’ motion for protective order, (ECF No. 53).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01737-AWI-BAM Document 57 Filed 03/11/20 Page 4 of 4