Davis v. Ramen et al

Filing 111

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 98 Motion for a Writ of Mandate and 106 Motion for Recusal; ORDER Addressing Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for an Extension of Time signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 06/01/2011. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

JAMES L. DAVIS,

10

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01216-AWI-SMS PC
Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

RAMEN, et al.,

13
14
15

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
A WRIT OF MANDATE AND MOTION FOR
RECUSAL
(ECF Nos. 98, 106)

Defendants.

ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
/ (ECF No. 104)

16
17

Plaintiff James L. Davis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the

19

third amended complaint, filed August 21, 2008, against Defendants Ramen, Rangel, Solis, and

20

Johnson for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment

21

rights. Plaintiff filed an emergency petition for a writ of mandate on January 19, 2011. (ECF No.

22

98.) On February 18, 2011, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to file

23

a reply in support of their motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 101.) Plaintiff filed an

24

opposition to Defendants’ motion for an extension of time on February 25, 2011. (ECF No. 105.)

25

On March 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for recusal. (ECF No. 106.) On March 23, 2011, this

26

case was reassigned to the undersigned. (ECF No. 108.)

27

Plaintiff’s motions filed February 18, 2011, and March 14, 2011, both object to the

28

Honorable Sheila Oberto hearing this action. Based upon the reassignment of this action to the
1

1

undersigned on March 23, 2011, Plaintiff’s motions shall be denied as moot.

2

On February 16, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for a fifteen day extension of time to file

3

a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Defendants requested the

4

extension of time because the opposition that was received in the mail was not the document that

5

Plaintiff filed with the Court. Defendants received a 72 page document entitled opposition to

6

summary judgment. The proof of service was dated January 25, 2011,1 but the envelope was

7

postmarked February 2, 2011. The document was placed in defense counsel’s mailbox on or around

8

February 7, 2011, however she was out of the office until February 14, 2011. Additionally, the

9

document filed with the court is not the opposition served upon Defendants. Plaintiff filed a 208

10

page document entitled traverse on February 4, 2011. Because of these issues Defendants requested

11

an additional fifteen days to file their reply to Plaintiff’s opposition. The Court found good cause

12

and granted the motion.

13

Plaintiff objects to the “excessive use of extention [sic] of time.” (Opp. 1, ECF No. 104.)

14

Plaintiff states that he placed his opposition to the motion for summary judgment in envelopes and

15

mailed them on January 25, 2011. (Id. at 2.) Defense counsel did not leave the planet and she could

16

have been reached by a cell phone or pager by her office assistant. Plaintiff contends that defense

17

counsel’s excuse is improper, and states that defense counsel is lying when she claims that she did

18

not receive the same motion that was filed with the Court. (Id. at 3.)

19

Initially, Plaintiff is advised that his unsupported allegations against defense counsel are

20

inappropriate. The Court will not tolerate personal attacks upon opposing counsel and further similar

21

conduct may result in the imposition of sanctions. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 401 U.S. 32, 43

22

(1991). The Court found good cause based upon the delay in receipt of the documents and defense

23

counsel’s representation that she did not receive the same document that was filed with the Court.

24

The Court notes that defense counsel only requested a brief, fifteen day continuance, which is not

25

an excessive amount of time in the circumstances.

26
27
28

1

Defendants’ motion states that the proof of service was dated January 25, 2010, and the envelope was
postmarked eight days later on February 2, 2011. Therefore, the Court assumes the date in the motion is an error and
that the proof of service was dated January 25, 2011.

2

1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

3

Plaintiff’s emergency petition for writ of mandate, file January 19, 2011, is DENIED
as moot; and

4

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for recusal, filed March 14, 2011, is DENIED as moot.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:
icido3

June 1, 2011

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3