Ellis v. Cambra, et al

Filing 169

ORDER Striking Plaintiff's Multiple Objections 165 , 167 , and Granting Thirty Days to File a Single Document Containing Objections, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 3/8/11. Objections to F&R Deadline: 4/11/2011.(Verduzco, M)

(PC) Ellis v. Cambra, et al

Doc. 169

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Randall E. Ellis ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 16 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 17 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On October 19, 2010, this court issued Findings and Recommendations recommending 19 that the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Drew be granted and that Plaintiff's 20 motion to strike be denied which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the 21 parties that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty 22 days. (Doc. 162.) Plaintiff requested and received a forty-five day extension of time, allowing 23 him until January 11, 2011 to file his objections. (Docs. 163, 164.) On January 11, 2011, 24 Plaintiff filed two separate documents identified as objections to the findings and 25 recommendations, one totaling fifty-two pages and the other totaling thirty-nine pages in length. 26 (Docs. 165, 167.) 27 It is Plaintiff's duty to clearly identify his objections to the findings and recommendation 28 1
Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

RANDALL E. ELLIS, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN CAMBRA, JR., et al.,

CASE NO. 1:02-CV-05646-AWI-SMS-PC ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S MULTIPLE OBJECTIONS AND GRANTING THIRTY DAYS TO FILE A SINGLE DOCUMENT CONTAINING OBJECTIONS (Doc. 165, 167) Defendants. THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE /

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

and any legal authority he relies on for each objection. It is not the duty of this court to sort through over ninety pages submitted under the guise of objections to attempt to distill and distinguish nuances between the two sets of objections. Further, it is not appropriate for a party to submit new evidence or legal theories with his objections. A new theory cannot properly be raised in objections to Findings and Recommendations. Greenhow v. Secretary of HHS, 863 F.2d 633, 638-39 (9th Cir. 1988), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Hardesty, 977 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir.1992). Factual assertions that which could have been but were not presented to the Magistrate Judge should be given no consideration when the court is deciding whether to adopt Findings and Recommendations. Sundaram v. County of Santa Barbara, 2001 WL 540515, *1 (C.D.Cal. 2001); Beam System, Inc. v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc., 1997 WL 423113, *9 n.9 (C.D.Cal. 1997). "[A]llowing parties to litigate fully their case before the magistrate and, if unsuccessful, to change their strategy and present a different theory to the district court would frustrate the purpose of the Magistrates Act." Greenhow, 863 F.2d at 638. Based on the foregoing, the documents which Plaintiff identified as objections to the findings and recommendations (Docs. 165, 167) are hereby STRICKEN from the record in this case. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file one document delineating all of his objections to the findings and recommendations which is not to exceed 25 pages in length, may not include any new legal theories and/or evidentiary submissions, and must comply with all applicable Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: icido3 March 8, 2011 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2