Lynch v. Doe, et al

Filing 54

ORDER REQUIRING Plaintiff to Submit Declaration In Support of 53 Seventh Motion for Extension of Time, as Instructed by This Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/17/2014. Thirty Day Deadline. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONEY LYNCH,

12
13
14
15

1:09-cv-02097-AWI-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
SUBMIT DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
SEVENTH MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
WARDEN OF PLEASANT VALLEY STATE TIME, AS INSTRUCTED BY THIS ORDER
(Doc. 53.)
PRISON, et al.,
vs.

Defendants.

16

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

17
18
19
20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

Anthoney Lynch (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

22

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this case on

23

December 2, 2009. (Doc. 1.)

24

On April 22, 2013, the court entered findings and recommendations, recommending that

25

Plaintiff‟s Second Amended Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a

26

claim. (Doc. 40.) Plaintiff was permitted thirty days in which to file objections to the findings

27

and recommendations. (Id.) Plaintiff has been granted six extensions of time to file objections.

28

(Docs. 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52.)
1

Plaintiff‟s seventh motion for extension of time to file objections is now before the

1
2

court. (Doc. 53.)

3

II.

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

4

“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good

5

cause, extend the time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Plaintiff requests thirty more days in which

6

to file objections to the findings and recommendations of April 22, 2013, on the grounds that he

7

has had limited access to the law library and difficulties accessing an “essential case” on the

8

computer. (Doc. 53 at 1:21-24.)

9

B.

Discussion

10

Plaintiff was initially permitted thirty days in which to file objections to the court‟s

11

April 22, 2013 findings and recommendations. (Doc. 40 at 7-8.) Now, nearly a year later,

12

Plaintiff is requesting a seventh extension of time to file objections, arguing that he requires

13

additional time for research. Based on Plaintiff‟s six previous requests for extension of time,

14

the court find no good cause to grant a seventh extension of time.

15

While Plaintiff's pleadings are afforded a certain amount of leeway as a pro se litigant,

16

see, e.g., Eldridge v. Block, 832 F .2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir.1987), “[p]ro se litigants must follow

17

the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567

18

(9th Cir.1987); see also Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir.1997)

19

(per curiam). “It is well established that „[d]istrict courts have inherent power to control their

20

docket.‟” Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Hercules, Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th

21

Cir.1998) (alteration in original) (quoting Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398

22

(9th Cir.1998)); accord Ready Transportation, Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th

23

Cir. 2010). Indeed, the inherent powers permit a district court to go as far as to dismiss entire

24

actions to rein in abusive conduct. Ready Transportation, Inc. at 404 (citing see Atchison, 146

25

F.3d at 1074 (recognizing inherent power to dismiss an action to sanction abusive conduct such

26

as judge-shopping or failure to prosecute).

27

The court finds no due diligence on Plaintiff‟s part in attempting to file the objections

28

due in this action. In his fourth motion for extension of time, Plaintiff requested time to
2

1

research “new areas of law” and claimed he had pending deadlines in other cases which were a

2

“hindrence (sic)” to his ability to file objections in this case. (Doc. 47 at 2:11,16.) In the fifth

3

motion for extension of time, Plaintiff acknowledged that he spent time preparing a traverse

4

due on December 5, 2013 in another court case, at the expense of meeting his deadline in this

5

case. (Doc. 49.) Now Plaintiff claims that he needs another thirty-day extension of time.

6

Plaintiff is advised that there is no need to research new areas of law to file objections

7

in this action. The court has already provided Plaintiff with the legal standards applicable to

8

his claims in this action, and Plaintiff should not need to spend hours in the law library or at the

9

computer conducting research to respond to the court‟s findings and recommendations.

10

Plaintiff shall be required to file a declaration within thirty days, explaining how much

11

time and effort he has spent during the past eleven months working on the objections for this

12

case, using dates and detailed explanations demonstrating his diligence in attempting to meet

13

the court‟s deadlines.1 Plaintiff must also inform the court of the progress he has made in

14

preparing the objections and what specific information is needed to complete them. Plaintiff

15

must also explain the reasons he requires extended time in the law library or at the computer to

16

respond to the court‟s findings and recommendations. Plaintiff must also inform the court of

17

all of his other pending court cases and any other court deadlines he is currently preparing to

18

meet. In short, Plaintiff must show good cause for the court to grant him a seventh extension of

19

time to file objections in this action.

20

III.

CONCLUSION

21

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

22

1.

Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff is required to file

23

a declaration showing good cause for the court to grant him a seventh extension

24

of time to file objections in this actions, as instructed by this order; and

25
26
27
28

1

The declaration must be dated and signed by Plaintiff, attesting under penalty of perjury to facts known
by the declarant, in substantially the following form: AI declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct. Executed on (date) . (Signature).@ Such a declaration, if properly prepared, is admissible in federal
court with the same effect as an affidavit. 28 U.S.C. ' 1746.
3

1

2.

2

Plaintiff‟s failure to comply with this order shall result in the dismissal of this
action.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 17, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
4