Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00649/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00649-9/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYSHON THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MADERA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00649-AWI-YNP PC

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

(Doc. 31, 34)

Plaintiff Rayshon Thomas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s

“Motion to Accept Appealed Motions by Mailbox Rule After Interference by Authorities on

4/23/09.” Plaintiff filed the motion on May 8, 2009. (Doc. #31.) Plaintiff states in his motion that

“[a]uthorities interference via with[h]eld legal mail on 4/23/09 violates access to the courts and

causes injury on this appeal. See envelope dated 4/23/09 as well as complaint EXH ‘A’.” (Mot. to

Accept Appealed Motions by Mailbox Rule After Interference by Authorities on 4/23/09 1.) Under

“Conclusion,” Plaintiff writes “ask mandamus appeals be accepted.” (Mot. to Accept Appealed

Motions 3.)

The Court is unable to determine what relief Plaintiff is seeking in his motion. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

On July 2, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time for any deadlines in this

case because prison authorities are holding Plaintiff’s legal mail. There are no pending deadlines

1

Case 1:06-cv-00649-AWI-GSA Document 35 Filed 02/01/10 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

in this case. This action is currently pending the screening of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. 

After the Court screens Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, Plaintiff will be notified of any

applicable deadlines. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time will be denied because

there are no applicable deadlines to extend.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion, filed on May 8, 2009, is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, filed on July 2, 2009, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 1, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:06-cv-00649-AWI-GSA Document 35 Filed 02/01/10 Page 2 of 2