(PC) Morris v. Bradford et al, No. 2:2011cv01171 - Document 86 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 12/22/16 recommending that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 83 be granted. This case be stayed until plaintiff is returned to CSP-Sacramento and has access to his legal materials. Defendants' 1/14/16 motion for summary judgment 70 be denied without prejudice to its renewal when the stay is lifted and the case re-opened. Plaintiff be ordered to inform the court when he is returned to CSP-Sacramento. The clerk of the court be directed to administratively close this case. Motions 70 and 83 referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEON E. MORRIS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:11-cv-1171 TLN DB P v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A.J.R. BRADFORD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 17 18 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 14, 2016 defendants moved for summary judgment. 19 (ECF No. 70.) Plaintiff received multiple extensions of time to file an opposition. (See Orders 20 dated Feb. 12, April 21, and Nov. 1, 2016 (ECF Nos. 73, 74, 82).) On July 13, 2016, plaintiff 21 sought a temporary stay of these proceedings. (ECF No. 76.) On November 1, 2016, the court 22 denied that request and informed plaintiff that he had thirty days to file an opposition to 23 defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 82.) On November 18, 2016, plaintiff filed a “declaration” in which he explains that he has 24 25 been temporarily transferred to the psychiatric program at Salinas Valley State Prison and was not 26 permitted to bring any of his legal property with him. Plaintiff states that he will not have access 27 to his legal property until he returns to California State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-Sacramento”). 28 //// 1 1 (ECF No. 83.) Plaintiff does not know how long he will be incarcerated at Salinas Valley. (Id. 2 at 2.) When the court considered plaintiff’s prior motion for a stay, plaintiff had not been 3 4 transferred to Salinas Valley and the court was unaware that plaintiff would not be permitted 5 access to his legal materials if he was. Based on this new information, the undersigned construed 6 plaintiff’s November 18, 2016 filing as a motion for reconsideration and ordered defendants to 7 respond. (ECF No. 84.) Defendants filed a response in which they confirm that plaintiff has been 8 transferred to the psychiatric program at Salinas Valley State Prison due to mental health issues 9 and that as a result of the transfer, plaintiff no longer has access to his legal paperwork because it 10 is still at CSP-Sacramento. (ECF No. 85.) Defendants agree that a temporary stay is appropriate 11 until plaintiff is returned to CSP-Sacramento and has access to his legal paperwork. 12 Accordingly, and good cause appearing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that 13 1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 83) be granted; 14 2. This case be stayed until plaintiff is returned to CSP-Sacramento and has access to his 15 legal materials; 3. Defendants’ January 14, 2016 motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 70) be denied 16 17 without prejudice to its renewal when the stay is lifted and the case re-opened; 18 4. Plaintiff be ordered to inform the court when he is returned to CSP-Sacramento; and 19 5. The Clerk of the Court be directed to administratively close this case. 20 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 21 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 22 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 23 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned 24 “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 25 objections shall be filed and served within seven days after service of the objections. The parties 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 2 1 are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of the 2 right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 Dated: December 22, 2016 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DLB:9 DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/morr1171.fr stay 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
