Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00006/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00006-7/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

JASON LATRELL THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. WILBER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00006-AWI-SKO PC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO MODIFY

SCHEDULING ORDER AND GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY ACCESS

REQUEST

(Docs. 57 and 58)

Amended Pretrial Dispositive

Motion Deadline: 05/20/2013

Plaintiff Jason Latrell Thomas, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 4, 2010. Pursuant to the amended

scheduling order filed on August 13, 2012, the deadline for filing pretrial dispositive motions is

February 19, 2013. On January 22, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to modify the scheduling order

to extend the pretrial dispositive motion deadline to May 20, 2013, based on the enormous

administrative burden now facing California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation staff

following the recent passage of Proposition 36. (Doc. 57, Motion, Chinn Dec.) As a result of the

need to shift staff resources to responding to requests byinmates for prison records needed to support

their petitions for new, reduced sentences, Defendants’ counsel has been unable to obtain the

documents necessary to prepare a motion for summary judgment. (Id.) The significant delay in

responding to non-Proposition 36 requests for records is projected to last at least through March

2013. (Id.)

///

///

1

Case 1:10-cv-00006-SKO Document 59 Filed 02/15/13 Page 1 of 3
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 addition, on February 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order requesting the

Attorney General’s Office call California State Prison-Sacramento and assist in facilitating the

release of Plaintiff’s legal property. (Doc. 58.)

Defendants have shown good cause for the requested extension of the motion deadline, and

Plaintiff is in need of additional time as well. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Zivkovic v. Southern

California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). Therefore, the motion deadline shall

be extended. 

With respect to Plaintiff’s request, he states that he was released from the infirmary in

December 2012, and he has been unable to regain access to his property, which includes his legal

material. Plaintiff’s motion is granted in that Defendants’ counsel is requested to contact the 1

Litigation Coordinator at CSP-Sacramento and find out whenPlaintiff will be provided with his legal

material. Counsel is requested to inform Plaintiff of the status of his property, via letter or otherwise. 

If Plaintiff needs further assistance following receipt of that information, he may file another

motion. However, Plaintiff is informed that the Court’s ability to intervene is limited, see Zepeda

v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (a federal court may not

attempt to determine rights of persons not before the court), and determinations regarding what is

necessary to maintain the safety and security of an institution rest within the sound discretion of

prison officials, see e.g., Noble v. Adams, 636 F.3d 525, 529 (9th Cir. 2011) (prison officials entitled

to wide-ranging deference), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1035 (2012); Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d

969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (prison officials entitled to deference in day-to-day prison operations).

Nevertheless, Plaintiff has a protected right to litigate his court cases and the Court

anticipates that prison officials will ensure that Plaintiff has access to his legal material. Silva v. Di

Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2011). The extension of the motion deadline will also

allow Plaintiff ample additional time to recover his propertyand undertake anynecessary review and

preparation.

///

It is unclear if Plaintiff’s request for his legal property is also being affected by the delay caused by

1

Proposition 36.

2

Case 1:10-cv-00006-SKO Document 59 Filed 02/15/13 Page 2 of 3
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

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion for an extension of the pretrial dispositive motion deadline, filed

on January 22, 2013, is GRANTED and the deadline is extended to May 20, 2013;

and

2. Plaintiff’s motion regarding access to his legal material, filed on February 6, 2013,

is GRANTED in that Defendants’ counsel is requested to contact the Litigation

Coordinator at CSP-Sacramento, find out when Plaintiff will be provided with his

legal material, and notify Plaintiff of the status of his legal property. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:10-cv-00006-SKO Document 59 Filed 02/15/13 Page 3 of 3