Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01193/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01193-23/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 

JEFFREY E. WALKER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MOHADJER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-1193 WBS AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a former1 state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 13, 2016, the court granted plaintiff an 

additional thirty days to file his opposition to defendants’ February 25, 2016 motion for summary 

judgment. The court warned plaintiff that absent extraordinary circumstances, no additional 

extensions of time would be granted. ECF No. 117. 

On June 20, 2016, plaintiff requested an additional thirty days to file his opposition. ECF 

No. 118. Plaintiff entitled his request “motion for extension of time request notes [sic] 

extraordinary circumstances,” and asserted that he requires an extension because he “needs more 

time to go through legal documents.” Id. 

//// 

 

1

 Plaintiff currently resides at Coalinga State Hospital. ECF No. 116. 

Case 2:13-cv-01193-WBS-AC Document 121 Filed 08/01/16 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 

27 

28 

2

On June 24, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for an injunction and temporary restraining 

order. ECF No. 119. On July 29, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion explaining that the temporary 

restraining order had been filed in the wrong case and requesting that the motion be forwarded to 

Fresno Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, for filing 

as a new case. See ECF No. 120. To date, plaintiff has not filed his opposition to defendants’ 

pending summary judgment motion. 

In his request for an extension of time, plaintiff asserts that he requires an extension 

because he “needs more time to go through his legal documents.” ECF No. 118. Considering 

that plaintiff has had more than five months to prepare his opposition to defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment, these circumstances do not appear to be extraordinary. However, in light of 

plaintiff’s pro se status, and in an extreme abundance of caution, the court will grant plaintiff one 

final opportunity to file his opposition. 

Plaintiff must file his opposition, or a statement of non-opposition, within fourteen 

(14) days from the date of service of this order. Defendants’ reply, if any, shall be due within 

seven days thereafter. If plaintiff fails to file his opposition, defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment will be deemed unopposed, and the matter submitted.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 118) is granted. 

2. Plaintiff is granted fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this order to file and 

serve his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants’ reply, 

if any, shall be due within seven (7) days thereafter. 

3. Plaintiff’s motion to correct his temporary restraining order (ECF No. 120) is granted. 

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining 

order (ECF No. 119) as a new action in the Fresno Division of the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of California. 

DATED: August 1, 2016 

Case 2:13-cv-01193-WBS-AC Document 121 Filed 08/01/16 Page 2 of 2