Scott v. Palmer et al

Filing 106

ORDER DENYING Defendants' 105 Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections, with Prejudice; ORDER (1) Adopting 102 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in Full, (2) DENYING 92 Defendants' Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant, Issue a Prefiling Order, and Require Plaintiff to Furnish Security, and (3) DENYING Defendants' 97 Motion to Strike Surreply as MOOT signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/21/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
FLOYD SCOTT,

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01329-LJO-SKO PC

8
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
OBJECTIONS, WITH PREJUDICE

9
v.
10
J. PALMER, et al.,

(Doc. 105)

11
Defendants.

ORDER (1) ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL, (2)
DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS
LITIGANT, ISSUE A PREFILING ORDER,
AND REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO FURNISH
SECURITY, AND (3) DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
SURREPLY AS MOOT

12
13
14
15
16

(Docs. 92, 97, and 102)
17

/

18
This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff Floyd Scott, a state
19
prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff claims arise from the alleged use of excessive force, in violation
20
of his rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The matter was referred
21
to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
22
I.

Motion for Extension of Time to Object

23
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for a thirty-five day extension of time to file
24
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations of November 16, 2012.
25
The parties were granted thirty days within which to file objections, which constitutes a
26
generous discretionary enlargement of the fourteen-day objection period the parties are entitled to
27
under the applicable rules and which is more than ample. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Local Rule 304(b).
28
1

1

Defendants waited until the day their objections were due to file their motion and they failed

2

to show good cause in support of their motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1); Local Rule 144(d). Local

3

Rule 144(d) expressly provides that requests “brought on the required filing date . . . are looked upon

4

with disfavor.” The press of business generally does not constitute good cause, see Pioneer Inv.

5

Serv. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 398, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 1499 (1993);

6

Selph v. Council of City of Los Angeles, 593 F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cir. 1979), superceded in part by

7

amendment, Fed. R. App. R. 4(a)(5), as recognized in United Artists Corp. v. La Cage Aux Follies,

8

Inc., 771 F.2d 1265, 1269 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985), and the supporting declaration of counsel does not

9

provide any basis for finding that the extension was sought as soon as the need for it was apparent,

10

Local Rule 144(d). Given the totality of these circumstances, Defendants’ motion for an extension

11

of time to file objections is denied.

12

II.

Findings and Recommendations

13

The Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations on November 16, 2012. The

14

parties were provided thirty days within which to file objections and no timely objections were filed.

15

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case.

16

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be

17

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

18

III.

Order

19

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1.

21

Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to file objections, filed on December 20,
2012, is DENIED, with prejudice;

22

2.

The findings and recommendations filed on November 16, 2012, are adopted in full;

23

3.

Defendants’ motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and issue a pre-filing

24

order against him and for an order requiring Plaintiff to furnish security, filed on June

25

22, 2012, is DENIED, with prejudice; and

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

4.

Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s surreply, filed on August 3, 2012, is DENIED

2

as moot.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated:

December 21, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
66h44d
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3