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
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?