(PC) Brown v. Rodriguez et al

Filing 93

ORDER REQUIRING Response to Objections signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 2/18/2022. Response due by 2/25/2022.(Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MARK ANTHONY BROWN,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:20-cv-00661-DAD-EPG (PC)
ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO
OBJECTIONS

v.
(ECF No. 92)
A. JARAMILLO, et al.,
Defendants.

15
Plaintiff Mark Anthony Brown is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
16
in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants have moved for summary
17
judgment, asserting that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to any of his
18
claims. (ECF No. 75). After the Court granted three extensions of time for Plaintiff to respond to
19
the motion for summary judgment, the Court issued findings and recommendations on January
20

20, 2020, to dismiss this case without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and comply

21
with court orders. (See ECF Nos. 80, 85, 88, 90).
22
On February 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
23
(ECF No. 92). Generally, Plaintiff states that he received and accepted an offer of settlement
24
during the time when his response was due and he thought that the case had been resolved. In
25
support, he attaches a letter from defense counsel allowing him to accept proposed terms until
26
December 31, 2021, and a proposed stipulation of dismissal that Plaintiff signed and dated
27

December 17, 2021. Additionally, Plaintiff states that he did not receive one of the Court’s orders

28
1

1

extending the time for him to file a response. Plaintiff asks that he be given sixty additional days

2

to file an opposition, asserting that COVID concerns have greatly limited his access to legal

3

resources.

4

In light of Plaintiff’s representations, the Court finds that a response from Defendants is

5

warranted. After hearing from Defendants, the Court will issue an order regarding Plaintiff’s

6

objections.

7

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, no later February 25, 2022, Defendants shall file a

8

response to Plaintiff’s objections, specifically addressing Plaintiff’s assertion that the parties

9

reached a settlement, and, if they did, explaining why Defendants failed to file a notice of

10

settlement as required by Local Rule 160 or the stipulation of dismissal signed by Plaintiff.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 18, 2022

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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