Reid v. United States of America et al

Filing 24

ORDER: (1) Granting Motion For Extension Of Time To File Objections (ECF No. 15 ), (2) Granting In Part And Denying In Part Motion For Hearing And Adjudication On All Outstanding Motions And Objections (ECF No. 17 ); (3) Granting Motion To Withdraw Motion For Extension Of Time To File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18 ); (4) Denying Motion To Extend Time For Filing Notice Of Appeal (ECF No. 19 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/27/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GORDON C. REID ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01163-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
OBJECTIONS (ECF No. 15);
(2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
IN PART MOTION FOR HEARING AND
ADJUDICATION ON ALL OUTSTANDING
MOTIONS AND OBJECTIONS (ECF No.
17);
(3) GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No.
18); AND

19
20
21

(4) DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME
FOR FILING NOTICE OF APPEAL (ECF
No. 19)

22
23
24
25
26
27

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

rights and tort action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403

28
1

1

U.S. 388 (1971) and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680.

2

On November 24, 2014, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it

3

for failure to state a claim, but gave leave to amend. (ECF No. 13.) Thereafter, Plaintiff

4

filed several motions that are before the Court for ruling.

5

On December 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file an

6

amended complaint. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff also filed a motion for extension of time to file

7

objections. (ECF No. 15.) Thereafter, on February 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the

8

Court’s screening order, seeking reconsideration by a District Judge. (ECF No. 16.)

9

On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for “Hearing and Adjudication on All

10

Outstanding Motions and Objections.” (ECF No. 17.) He then moved to withdraw his

11

motion for extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 18.) He also moved

12

for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. (ECF No. 19.)

13

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on March 23, 2015. (ECF No. 20.) On April 13,

14

2015, his appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 23.)

15

II.

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS

16

Plaintiff seeks an extension of time on the ground that he did not receive the

17

Court’s screening order until December 1, 2014, because he was in the Special Housing

18

Unit. He wishes to object to numerous aspects of the screening order.

19

Good cause having been presented, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for

20

extension of time nunc pro tunc. Plaintiff’s February 2, 2015 objections will be deemed

21

timely.

22

III.

MOTION FOR HEARING AND ADJUDICATION

23

Plaintiff complains that his motions have been pending for several months.

24

The Fresno Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

25

California carries one of the busiest dockets in the country. The Court is faced with

26

cases similar to Plaintiff’s almost daily. There is a backlog of cases and resulting delay in

27

addressing motions.

28
2

1

To the extent Plaintiff’s motions are addressed herein, his motion for adjudication

2

will be granted. In all other respects, the motion will be denied. The District Judge will

3

address Plaintiff’s objections to the screening order in due course.

4

IV.

5

MOTION TO WITHDRAW MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Plaintiff seeks to withdraw his motion for extension of time to file an amended

6

complaint. (ECF No. 14.) The request will be granted.

7

V.

8
9

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL
Plaintiff states that he submitted a notice of appeal on February 9, 2015, but it

was not filed. He therefore seeks an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

10

Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed because the challenged order (the Court’s

11

screening order) was not final or appealable. (ECF No. 23.) Because the appeal was not

12

authorized, there was no deadline for Plaintiff to appeal. His motion for extension of time

13

is moot and will be denied.

14

VI.

15
16
17
18
19

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file objections (ECF No. 15) is
GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff’s time to file objections is extended nunc pro tunc to February 2,
2015;

20

3. Plaintiff’s motion for hearing and adjudication on all outstanding motions

21

and objections (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN

22

PART;

23
24
25
26
27

4. Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw motion for extension of time to file amended
complaint (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED;
5. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file an amended complaint (ECF
No. 14) is WITHDRAWN; and
6. Plaintiff’s motion to extend time for filing a notice of appeal (ECF No. 19) is

28
3

1

DENIED AS MOOT.

2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 27, 2015

/s/

5

Michael J. Seng

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