Sifuentes v. Ola, et al.

Filing 74

ORDER declining to adopt Findings and Recommendations 69 signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/27/2022. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MIGUEL G. SIFUENTES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.

No. 1:16-cv-00241-DAD-GSA (PC)

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DR. OLA,
(Doc. No. 69)
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff Miguel G. Sifuentes is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

18

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

19

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On March 16, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

21

recommending that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to obey a

22

court order. (Doc. No. 69.) Specifically, because plaintiff did not comply with the Local Rules

23

by timely filing an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion for summary

24

judgment that defendant filed on May 28, 2021 (Doc. No. 54), the assigned magistrate judge

25

issued an order directing plaintiff to do so within thirty (30) days of entry of that order. (Doc. No.

26

58.) Instead, plaintiff filed a request for a 60-day extension of time to file an opposition to

27

defendant’s motion, which the court granted on November 16, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 59, 61.) On

28

January 21, 2022, plaintiff filed a second request for an extension of time—this time requesting
1

1

an extension of 30 days and attaching an incomplete draft if his opposition to “demonstrate his

2

good faith effort.” (Doc. No. 63 at 8.) On February 1, 2022, the court granted plaintiff’s second

3

request for an extension of time, finding good cause for “one final 30-day extension of time to

4

complete and file his opposition.” (Doc. No. 64 at 3.) Plaintiff was warned that his “failure to

5

comply with [that] order shall result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed.” (Id.)

6

Nevertheless, on February 24, 2022, plaintiff filed a third request for an extension of

7

time—this time requesting an extension of 30 days because he allegedly had not been allowed to

8

access the prison’s law library since January 14, 2022 due to an outbreak of COVID-19. (Doc.

9

No. 65.) The assigned magistrate judge denied plaintiff’s third request for an extension of time,

10

finding that plaintiff had not shown due diligence in responding to defendant’s motion for

11

summary judgment and concluding that “[p]laintiff has not explained why he needs access to the

12

law library or why he has only completed part of the opposition during the past 9 months. This

13

case cannot be permitted to languish indefinitely while Plaintiff seeks numerous extensions of

14

time.” (Doc. No. 66 at 2.) The assigned magistrate judge, for good cause, directed that plaintiff

15

file his opposition no later than March 10, 2022.

16

On March 14, 2022, plaintiff filed yet a fourth request for an extension of time, or in the

17

alternative, his opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which, although

18

unfinished, still provided plaintiff’s substantive response and arguments in opposition to the

19

merits of defendant’s motion. (Doc. No. 67.) However, because plaintiff neglected to sign this

20

document before filing it, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order striking plaintiff’s filing

21

due to the lack of a signature. (Doc. No. 68.)

22

On March 16, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

23

recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s

24

order that he file a response to defendant’s motion for summary judgement. (Doc. No. 69.) The

25

findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any

26

objections thereto were to be filed within ten (10) days from the date of service. (Id. at 3.) On

27

March 30, 2022, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations, and he

28

also re-filed the document that had been stricken, this time bearing his signature. (Doc. Nos. 70,
2

1

71.) On March 31, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order addressing plaintiff’s

2

signed filing, but only to the extent of denying plaintiff’s fourth request for an extension of time.

3

(Doc. No. 72.) On April 1, 2022, defendant filed a response to plaintiff’s objections to the

4

pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 73.)

5

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

6

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

7

including plaintiff’s objections and defendant’s response thereto, the court concludes the findings

8

and recommendations are not supported by the record and declines to adopt them.
The findings and recommendations are based on plaintiff’s failure to timely file a response

9
10

to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 72.) However, plaintiff’s filing on

11

March 14, 2022 included both a further request for an extension of time and, in the alternative, a

12

substantive response to defendant’s motion. If not for the technical deficiency that plaintiff

13

neglected to sign that filing, leading the assigned magistrate judge to strike it from the docket,

14

plaintiff’s filing at least arguably would have complied with the court’s order directing that he

15

response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Rather than allow plaintiff to cure that

16

deficiency, the assigned magistrate judge promptly issued the pending findings and

17

recommendations recommending dismissal of this action with prejudice. Moreover, even after

18

plaintiff filed a signed version of his filing, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order denying

19

the requested extension of time but did not address the “alternative” aspect of plaintiff’s filing, in

20

which plaintiff provided a substantive response in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary

21

judgment.

22

Accordingly, the undersigned declines to adopt the pending findings and

23

recommendations. This matter will be referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for

24

consideration of plaintiff’s “in the alternative” opposition (Doc. No. 70) addressing the merits of

25

defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment. The assigned magistrate judge shall also set

26

a deadline for defendant to file a reply, if any, to plaintiff’s opposition.

27

/////

28

/////
3

1

For the reasons set forth above:

2

1.

3
4

March 16, 2022 (Doc. No. 69); and
2.

5
6
7

The undersigned declines to adopt the findings and recommendations issued on

This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate for further proceedings
consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 27, 2022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4