Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00910/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00910-8/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

ARNOLD W. LEVI,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-910 LKK KJM P

vs.

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On April 21, 2006, plaintiff responded to this court’s order of March 30, 2006,

which directed the filing of a status report on his efforts to reassemble his legal materials. He

reports that he was transferred to another prison on March 15, 2006 and the papers and

documents necessary to enable him to oppose the defendants’ motions for summary judgment

were again moved in a haphazard fashion. Plaintiff also complains of his access to and the

quality of the law library at Kern Valley State Prison. Finally, he asks the court to rule on his

request to have the Clerk of the Court direct a subpoena to California State Prison–Sacramento. 

He asks for a period of fifteen days in which to reorganize his legal materials and then for sixty

days thereafter in which to file his opposition to renewed motions for summary judgment. The

court notes that defendant Vong renewed his motion on April 3, and the remaining defendants

renewed their motion on April 28, 2006. On April 27, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to strike

Case 2:02-cv-00910-LKK -KJM Document 212 Filed 05/02/06 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

defendant Vong’s renewal of his motion as premature.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s April 27, 2006 motion to strike defendant Vong’s renewed motion

for summary judgment is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s opposition to all motions for summary judgment is due forty-five

days from the date of this order. Replies, if any, shall be due twenty-one days after any

opposition is filed.

3. Plaintiff’s September 26, 2005, request for an order directing the Clerk of the

Court to serve a subpoena duces tecum is denied.

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a blank subpoena form. 

DATED: April 28, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

i

2

levi0910

Case 2:02-cv-00910-LKK -KJM Document 212 Filed 05/02/06 Page 2 of 2