Forte v. County of Merced et al
Filing
336
ORDER Denying 327 Ex Parte Application For Extension of Time to File Supplemental Objections and Response to Application at Document 330 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/7/2015. ( 300 F&R's are hereby TAKEN UNDER SUBMISSION. The court hereby EXTENDS the STAY of proceedings in this case until such time as it will issue its orders on the Magistrate Judges F&Rs.)(Gaumnitz, R)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
EUGENE E. FORTE,
9
10
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-0318 AWI BAM
Plaintiff
v.
11
COUNTY OF MERCED, et al.,
12
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL
OBJECTIONS and RESPONSE TO
APPLICATION AT DOCUMENT # 330
Defendants.
Doc. #’s 327 and 330
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Currently before the court is Plaintiff’s ex-parte “Application for Extension of Time for
Plaintiff to Supplement Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. # 322) to Magistrate Judge Barbara
McAuliffe’s Findings and Recommendations Recommending Dismissal for Bad Faith Conduct
(Doc. #300)” (hereinafter, Plaintiff’s “Application”). Plaintiff submitted his original opposition
to the Magistrate Judges Findings and Recommendations (“F&R’s”) on April 16, 2015. Plaintiff
contends, inter alia, that he was denied the opportunity to respond to the Magistrate Judge’s
admonishment contained in an order dated April 9, 2015, Doc. # 319, which pertained to a filing
by Plaintiff at Docket Number 318. The Magistrate Judge’s order of April 9, ordered Plaintiff’s
filing at Doc. # 318 stricken for improper argument on the Docket Report (the “April 9 Order”).
Docket Number 318 was captioned:
REQUEST for JUDGE ISHII TO OBTAIN PROOF FROM COURT REPORTER
GAIL THOMAS THAT PLAINTIFF GAVE THOMAS A "BAD CHECK" FOR
COURT TRANSCRIPTS AS STATED BY THOMAS IN HER EMAIL OF
4/07/2015 AND PROVIDE SUCH EVIDENCE TO PLAINTIFF
IMMEDIATELY. IF PROOF CANNOT BE PROVIDED, PLAINTIFF
REQUESTS THAT THE COURT ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THOMAS HAS
MADE AN INTENTIONAL MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENT TO MALIGN
PLAINTIFF SO THAT PLAINTIFF MAY ARGUE SUCH IN HIS OBJECTIONS
TO MAGISTRATE MCAULIFFE'S F & R (DOC. #300) RECOMMENDING
DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT DUE IN PART TO PLAINTIFF'S
ALLEGED BAD TREATMENT OF COURT STAFF (WHICH PLAINTIFF HAS
NEVER DONE, JUST AS HE HAS NEVER ISSUED A BAD CHECK TO
THOMAS). PLAINTIFF REQUESTS THE INFORMATION FROM THE
COURT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE E.D. CLERKS AND COURT STAFF ARE
PREJUDICED AGAINST PLAINTIFFS INTERESTS TO THE POINT OF
FALSELY ACCUSING HIM OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT (VIOLATION OF
PENAL CODE 476 (a) WHICH IS A WOBBLER FELONY OR
MISDEMEANOR) WHEN THERE WAS NONE, TO TAUNT, PROVOKE AND
HUMILIATE PLAINTIFF WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND/OR DIRECTION,
AND/OR RATIFICATION OF JUDGE ISHII AND MAGISTRATE
MCAULIFFE.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
The Magistrate Judge’s April 9 order opined that Plaintiff’s choice of title language was
9
“argument, improper and abusive.” Doc. # 319 at 1:21. Plaintiff’s filing was stricken. Plaintiff
10
was given leave to amend and advised that any future filings by Plaintiff “must be filed in motion
11
format.” Doc. # 319 at 2:6-7.
So far as the court can discern, Plaintiff’s Application requests a continuance of time to
12
13
allow plaintiff to argue two “new” issues. First, Plaintiff seeks to argue the “baseless” nature of
14
The Magistrate Judge’s admonition and to counter what Plaintiff anticipates will be the court’s use
15
of the April 9 Order against him. Second, Plaintiff seeks to elaborate on his theory that the
16
transcriptionist’s communication with Plaintiff requiring a cashier’s check in payment for a
17
request for transcripts because a prior check had been returned for insufficient funds evinces the
18
biased attitude and conspiratorial aims of the court and its personnel against him. Plaintiff also
19
requests that Defendants be ordered to delay their responses to Plaintiff’s opposition in order to
20
comment on the added material Plaintiff seeks to append to his opposition. Beyond that,
21
Plaintiff’s Application restates some of the major themes already presented in his opposition to the
22
F&R’s.
23
To some extent, events have overtaken Plaintiff’s Application insofar as Defendants filed
24
their responses to Plaintiff’s opposition (a filing which Plaintiff’s Application sought to delay until
25
after his supplement was filed) two days after Plaintiff’s Application was filed. Further, Plaintiff
26
filed his “reply” to Defendants’ responses to his opposition on May 4, 2015, thereby completing
27
the usually-accepted briefing regarding most motions. Plaintiff’s Application, if granted, would
28
result in a substantial delay in proceedings. For the reasons that follow, the court finds further
2
1
2
delay is neither warranted nor necessary.
On March 16, 2015, the court granted Plaintiff’s second request for extension of time to
3
file an opposition. That order extended the date for submission of Plaintiff’s opposition to April
4
16, 2015, and of Defendants’ response to April 30, 2015. The Docket Report indicates both
5
documents were filed by the dates set by the court. Plaintiff has made his position perfectly clear
6
with regard to the April 9 Order and with regard to his perceptions regarding the court’s biases in
7
his Application. While Plaintiff may be of the opinion that the themes he raises in his Application
8
require further elaboration, they do not. The court finds that it is sufficient for Plaintiff’s purpose
9
that the court deem Plaintiff’s Application to be the supplemental memorandum in support of his
10
opposition to the F&R’s that he seeks to file. The court will so consider it. In accepting Plaintiff’s
11
Application as the supplement and in denying leave to further amend or supplement his
12
opposition, the court reaches no conclusions regarding the merits of Plaintiff’s contentions.
13
Plaintiff’s contentions expressed in his Application and the facts alleged in support thereof are
14
now before the court and, to the extent Plaintiff may later wish to challenge the court’s future
15
ruling on the Magistrate Judge’s F&R’s, the issues are adequately preserved for appeal.
16
At Document # 330, Plaintiff questioned the caption that appeared on the response of
17
Defendants Hill, et al., which indicated a hearing date of June 8, 2014. Plaintiff’s Document
18
Number 330 requests that the court disclose what proceeding is scheduled in this case on June 8,
19
2015, at 1:30 p.m. The answer is nothing pertaining to this action is scheduled. Defendants Hill,
20
et al. explained in a document filed at Docket Number 331 that they had placed a hearing date on
21
their response to Plaintiff’s opposition in error. The court has no reason to doubt Defendant’s
22
explanation.
23
24
THEREFORE, for the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s Application, Docket Number
25
327, is hereby DEEMED by the court to be Plaintiff’s Supplement to his Objections to the
26
Magistrate Judge’s F&R’s. Plaintiff’s Application is otherwise DENIED in its entirety. The court
27
further ORDERS that the matters presented by the Magistrate Judge’s F&R’s, Document Number
28
300 have been thoroughly briefed by the Parties and the matter is hereby TAKEN UNDER
3
1
SUBMISSION as of the date of service of this order. The court hereby EXTENDS the STAY of
2
proceedings in this case until such time as it will issue its orders on the Magistrate Judge’s F&R’s.
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 7, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT 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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?