Sierra v. Woodford, et al.

Filing 87

ORDER Granting Extension of Time to File Objections 84 , 86 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/14/2011. Objections Due in Thirty Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

KENNETH ALAN SIERRA,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
J. WOODFORD, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

NO. 1:07-cv-00149-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS
(ECF Nos. 84, 86)
OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY
DAYS

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. The matter was

18

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

19

302.

20

On April 23, 2010, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that

21

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status be revoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and Plaintiff be

22

directed to submit the filing fee in full. Plaintiff requested an extension of time and on May 28,

23

2010, Plaintiff was granted an extension of time to file objections. Plaintiff requested a second

24

extension of time, and on July 6, 2010, Plaintiff was granted a thirty day extension of time. On

25

August 24, 2010, Plaintiff was granted a third extension of time. On October 7, 2010, Plaintiff

26

was granted a fourth extension of time. Plaintiff now requests a fifth extension of time to file

27

objections.

28

Plaintiff makes vague arguments regarding difficulties he is having gaining access to his

1

legal property, as well as allegations regarding “obstruction of mail.” Plaintiff re-asserts

2

rambling arguments regarding events that occurred in 1999, arguments that the Court has

3

addressed in earlier rulings. The issue before the Court is clear. Plaintiff is not entitled to

4

proceed in forma pauperis unless he meets the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The

5

Court has found that the operative pleading in this case fails to meet that standard. Because the

6

operative pleading is based on factual allegations, Plaintiff has personal knowledge of the facts

7

alleged. No legal research is required, and Plaintiff does not need access to the law library to

8

address the objections. Plaintiff is advised that, although the present motions for extension of

9

time will be granted, no further extensions of time will be granted. Thirty days from the date

10

of service of this order, the April 23, 2010, recommendation will be submitted to the District

11

Court, regardless of whether objections have been filed.

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted a final extension of

13

time to file objections to the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff’s objections are due thirty

14

days from the date of service of this order.

15
16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:
6i0kij

April 14, 2011

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2