Cathy v. Kuzmicz
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:19-cv-05932
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Cathy v. Kuzmicz, Judge Hamilton denied a prisoner’s requests to pause the case and obtain preferred legal status at his current prison.
Charles Ray Cathy’s requests for a stay, additional time, and preferred legal status were denied; his underlying civil-rights claims were not decided.
What happened
Charles Ray Cathy, a state prisoner representing himself, sued under a federal civil-rights law. He asked for a 90-day extension or a pause because a public health crisis made responding to discovery requests more difficult.
The court denied the request to pause the case. It said Cathy could request a reasonable extension to respond to any dispositive motion after defendants filed one, and noted that defendants had indicated he could receive more time for discovery.
Cathy also asked the court to order his current prison to give him preferred legal status. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied that request because officials at his current prison were not parties to the case. The court denied both motions.
The detailed version
- Cathy v. Kuzmicz · No. 4:19-cv-05932
- Phyllis Hamilton
- May 27, 2020
Background
Charles Ray Cathy, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had ordered service, and the defendants filed a waiver of reply on March 17, 2020. Defendants had served discovery requests, and a dispositive motion was due July 3, 2020.
Cathy moved for a 90-day extension or a stay of the case, explaining that the public health crisis had made it harder to respond to the discovery requests. He also moved for an order requiring his current prison to grant him preferred legal status.
Court’s analysis and ruling
The court denied the motion for a stay. It noted that no other motions required Cathy’s immediate attention and that defendants had indicated he could receive an extension to respond to the discovery requests. The court stated that, if defendants later filed a dispositive motion, it would grant any reasonable request by Cathy for additional time to file an opposition.
The court also denied the request concerning preferred legal status. It explained that an injunction generally binds the parties to the case and certain people acting with them. Because the defendants worked at Pelican Bay State Prison, while Cathy was incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison, no person who could provide the requested status at his current prison was a party to the case. The court therefore concluded that it should not issue an order it could not enforce.
The court denied both motions, Docket Nos. 18 and 21. It did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.