Hansen v. Nkwocha

Filing 28

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 27 Motion for Stay; ORDER GRANTING Extension of Time; Twenty-Day Deadline to File Objections to Findings and Recommendations, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/10/17. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN HANSEN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 P. NKWOCHA, 15 Defendant. 1:15-cv-01665-DAD-GSA-PC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR STAY (ECF No. 27.) ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TWENTY-DAY DEADLINE TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF No. 22.) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Steven Hansen (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 24 with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 25 commencing this action on November 2, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds with 26 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on February 29, 2016, against sole defendant 27 Custody Officer Philip Nkwocha (“Defendant”), on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim under the First 28 Amendment. (ECF No. 7.) 1 1 On April 25, 2017, the court entered findings and recommendations to grant 2 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust 3 administrative remedies before filing suit. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff was granted thirty days in 4 which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.) During the next three 5 months Plaintiff requested, and was granted, two thirty-day extensions of time to file 6 objections. (ECF Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed objections. 7 On August 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay the proceedings in this action. (ECF 8 No. 27.) 9 II. MOTION TO STAY 10 Plaintiff requests the court to stay the proceedings in this action to allow him additional 11 time to file objections, because “[b]eing that I am a state prisoner my resources are limited and 12 at times restricted.” (Id.) 13 The court does not lightly stay litigation, due to the possibility of prejudice to 14 defendants. Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the court to stay this action. Plaintiff offers 15 no evidence except his conclusory statement to support his argument that this case should be 16 stayed indefinitely. Therefore, the motion to stay this action shall be denied. 17 Moreover, Plaintiff has not shown good cause for an extension of time to file 18 objections. Plaintiff has not explained what resources he needs that are restricted, or why they 19 are restricted. Plaintiff has not shown that he has been diligent in preparing objections or that 20 an extension of time will assist him in defending against summary judgment. Plaintiff filed an 21 opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on September 30, 2016, and has not 22 argued that the opposition was deficient in any way. Further, Plaintiff has already had more 23 than three months to file objections. 24 In the interest of justice, the court shall allow Plaintiff one more extension of time to 25 file objections. Plaintiff shall be granted twenty days in which to file objections, if any. 26 III. CONCLUSION 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. Plaintiff’s motion to stay this action, filed on August 7, 2017, is DENIED; 2 1 2. Plaintiff is GRANTED an extension of time until twenty days from the date of 2 service of this order, to file objections, if any, to the findings and 3 recommendations issued by the court on April 25, 2017; and 4 3. No further extensions of time shall be granted without a showing of good cause. 5 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 10, 2017 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?