Howard v. Wang, et al.

Filing 67

ORDER DISREGARDING 66 Plaintiff's Motion for Objections signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 3/19/2014. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TIMOTHY HOWARD,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

J. WANG, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:10cv01783 AWI DLB (PC)
ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR OBJECTIONS
(Document 66)

17
18

Plaintiff Timothy Howard (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

19

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil

20

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

21

claim against Defendants Dr. Wang and Dr. Clark.

22

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on January 30, 2014. Plaintiff filed his

23

opposition on February 24, 2014. On March 10, 2014, the Court granted Defendants’ March 7, 2014,

24

request for additional time to file a reply.

25
26
27

On March 17, 2014, the Court received Plaintiff’s objections to Defendants’ request for an
extension. Plaintiff states that since Defendants acknowledge that a reply was due on March 3, 2014,
their request should have been filed by that date.

28
1

1
2
3
4
5

While Plaintiff is correct that generally, requests for extensions must be filed prior to the
expiration of the date at issue, he fails to recognize that Defendants made a calendaring error. It was
this error, not Defendants’ “ignorance of the law,” that resulted in the delayed filing. In such
circumstances, the Court can exercise its discretion to excuse a late request.
Plaintiff’s “motion for objections” is therefore DISREGARDED.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

March 19, 2014

10

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

11

L. Beck

9b0hied

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2