IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
September 7, 2006
BOB BRIGHTWELL, PLAINTIFF,
JOSEPH LEHMAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COMMISSIONER OF PENNSYLVANIA LENIHAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; RAYMOND J. SOBINA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL DOC. NO. 99 INSTITUTION AT SOMERSET; SYLVIA GIBSON, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT FOR CENTRALIZED SERVICES OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT SOMERSET; GERALD ROZUM, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ACTING DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT FOR FACILITIES MANAGEMENT OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT SOMERSET; DANIEL J. GEHLMANN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MAJOR OF UNIT MANAGEMENT OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT SOMERSET; AND LEO GLASS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CAPTAIN OF INMATE RECEIVING COMMITTEE (I.R.C.) OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT SOMERSET, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo
Judge Kim R. Gibson
On July 13, 2006 the undersigned entered an Order denying six pending motions filed by Plaintiff, many of which were repetitive. Plaintiff filed a prior motion for extension to file objections,which was granted and Plaintiff was given an extension until August 31, 2006. Hehas filed a second request for an extension alleging that he has been transferred to another facility and is being denied access to the law library. Based upon the attachments to the Motion, he is denied direct access to the library due to prison policy. However, policy also allows him to receive legal books upon request and he did, in fact, receive a number of legal cases following the Order in question.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will give him some leeway to prepare his objections. However, the Motion and documents attached thereto indicate that Plaintiff would be able to obtain the cases cited in the Order that he indicates are needed. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, this 7th day of September, 2006, after consideration of Plaintiff's second motion to extend time to file objections to the Order of the undersigned, dated July 13, 2006, that said Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff is given an extension until October 15, 2006 to file his objections.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are to make reasonable efforts to ensure that Plaintiff is given those legal volumes or cases that he needs to prepare his objections, so long as that request is within prison facility policy.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are allowed ten (10) days from this date to appeal this order to a district judge pursuant to Rule 72.1.3(B) of the Local Rules for Magistrates. Failure to appeal within ten (10) days may constitute waiver of the right to appeal.
Lisa Pupo Lenihan United States Magistrate Judge
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.