Morris v. Nangalama et al

Filing 25

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 5/10/13 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 3/11/13 MOTION for Extension of Time 23 is GRANTED; The Order entered on 3/8/13 22 adopting in full the Findings and Recommendations, revoking Plaintif f's in forma pauperis status is CONFIRMED; and Plaintiff is GRANTED fourteen (14) days from the date of this order in which to pay the $350.00 filing fee. Failure to timely pay the filing fee will result in the dismissal of this action. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LEON E. MORRIS, Plaintiff, 11 12 No. 2:12-cv-1202 MCE KJN P vs. 13 DR. NANGALAMA, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 ORDER / 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 17 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On January 29, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 (ECF No. 21) which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither 22 party filed objections to the findings and recommendations. On March 8, 2013, this Court 23 adopted the findings and recommendations, dismissed this action, and judgment was entered. 24 Thereafter, on March 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed a request for extension of time (ECF No. 25 23), accompanied by a document styled, “Motion in Opposition of Court’s Order and Its 26 Findings and Recommendations. . . .” (ECF No. 24.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s filing as a 1 1 request for the Court to consider Plaintiff’s late objections. Accordingly, the March 8, 2013 2 Order adopting the findings and recommendations is hereby reconsidered in light of the 3 Plaintiff's recently submitted objections.1 However, nothing presented in Plaintiff's objections 4 warrants vacating the judgment in this case. In Morris v. Woodford, 3:07-cv-4198 MJJ (N.D. 5 Cal.), the court determined that Plaintiff had “struck out” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and 6 dismissed the case. Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to challenge that finding in 3:07-cv- 7 4198 MJJ.2 8 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case, including Plaintiff's objections to the findings 10 and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 11 Court again finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 12 analysis. 13 /// 14 /// 15 /// 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 1 24 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b). 2 25 26 Moreover, on December 21, 2012, plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status was revoked in Case Nos. 2:12-cv-2240 GEB CKD and 2:12-cv-2448 JAM CKD. These cases were terminated on February 21, 2013, and March 19, 2013, respectively, based on plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee. 2 1 2 3 /// Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. 4 5 Plaintiff’s March 11, 2013 motion for extension of time (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED; 2. The Order entered on March 8, 2013 (ECF No. 22) adopting in full the 6 findings and recommendations, revoking plaintiff’s in forma pauperis 7 status is CONFIRMED; and 8 3. 9 10 Plaintiff is granted fourteen (14) days from the date of this order in which to pay the $350.00 filing fee. Failure to timely pay the filing fee will result in the dismissal of this action. 11 Date: May 10, 2013 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 ___________________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?