Kasey F. Hoffman v. Pulido et al

Filing 21

ORDER on Objections 14 , 15 signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/8/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

KASEY F. HOFFMAN,

9

Plaintiff
ORDER ON OBJECTIONS

10
11

CASE NO. 1:18-CV-0209 AWI SKO

v.
L. PULIDO, et al.,

12

(Doc. Nos. 14, 15)
Defendants

13
14

On March 15, 2018, the Court dismissed this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

15

following an order to show cause. See Doc. No. 10. The Court noted inter alia that Plaintiff had

16

not replied to the order to show cause. See id.

17

11.

The case was closed the same day. See Doc. No.

18

On March 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed a reply to the order to show cause. See Doc. No. 12.

19

On March 22, 2018, the Court addressed Plaintiff’s reply. See Doc. No. 13. The Court

20

reviewed Plaintiff’s reply on the assumption that the reply was timely filed under the prison

21

mailbox rule, but not actually received by the Court prior to dismissal. See id. The Court

22

addressed the arguments of Plaintiff and found that they were without merit and did not warrant

23

the vacation of the dismissal order or the reopening of the case. See id.

24

On March 26 and March 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed objections to the dismissal, specifically

25

on the basis that he had filed/submitted a timely reply to the order to show cause. See Doc. Nos.

26

14, 15. In both filings, Plaintiff included copies of his March 22 reply memorandum. See id.

27
28

On April 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed what was determined to be a notice of appeal, and the
appeal was processed on April 17, 2018. See Doc. Nos. 16, 17.

1
2
3

On April 26, 2018, the Ninth Circuit noted the March 26 and March 28 objections and held
this matter in abeyance, pending the Court’s ruling on the objections. See Doc. No. 19.
As noted above, the March 26 and March 28 objections merely state that Plaintiff did file a

4

timely reply and attached copies of Plaintiff’s March 20 reply. Cf. Doc. Nos. 14, 15 with Doc.

5

No. 12. For the reasons stated in the Court’s March 22, 2018 Order, Plaintiff’s objections are

6

overruled. See Doc. No. 13. The substantive response to the order to show cause is without merit

7

and does not warrant the vacation of the dismissal order or the reopening this case. See id.

8
9
10
11

ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. Nos. 14, 15) are
OVERRULED.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 8, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2