Ahdom v. Etchebehere et al

Filing 72

ORDER DENYING 70 Request to File Reply signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/27/17. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BILAL AHDOM, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. 1:13-cv-01623-DAD-GSA-PC ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO FILE REPLY (ECF No. 70.) C. ETCHEBEHERE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Bilal Ahdom (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 19 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this Complaint commencing this 20 action on October 9, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second 21 Amended Complaint, filed on December 8, 2015, against defendant Associate Warden C. 22 Etchebehere (“Defendant”) for violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Free Exercise Clause of 23 the First Amendment. (ECF No. 24.) 24 On August 21, 2017, the undersigned entered findings and recommendations, 25 recommending that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted. (ECF No. 63.) The 26 parties were granted fourteen days in which to file objections to the findings and 27 recommendations, with an additional seven days to file replies to any objections. (Id. at 59:8- 28 13.) After being granted an extension of time, Plaintiff filed six objections to the findings and 1 1 recommendations on October 6, 2017. (ECF No. 68.) On October 13, 2017, Defendant filed a 2 response to Plaintiff’s objections. (ECF No. 69.) On October 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a request for leave to file a reply to Defendant’s 3 4 response to Plaintiff’s objections. (ECF No. 70.) 5 II. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 6 Plaintiff requests permission to file a reply to Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s 7 objections to the findings and recommendations. In support of this request, Plaintiff merely 8 states that when he received Defendant’s response, he “discovered that there was a need to 9 respond to the defendant’s claims.” (Id.) 10 Plaintiff’s statement is not sufficient to show good cause for the court to allow him to 11 file a reply. Plaintiff has not explained what he discovered in Defendant’s response that 12 requires a reply or why he failed to address the issue in his objections. The findings and 13 recommendations only allowed the parties to file objections and replies to the objections. 14 Plaintiff has not shown that a valid reason for an additional response exists. 15 Plaintiff’s request shall be denied. 16 III. 17 18 Therefore, CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to file a reply to Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s objections, filed on October 24, 2017, is DENIED. 19 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 27, 2017 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?