Benyamini v. Blackburn et al

Filing 109

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 6/20/2017: DENYING 107 Motion for Reconsideration; ADOPTING in FULL 103 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING 88 Motion Declaring Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant and Requiring Security. (Washington, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT BENYAMINI, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:13-cv-0205 MCE AC P v. ORDER M. BLACKBURN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 17 18 seeking relief under 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. On March 23, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 103. 23 Defendants filed objections to the findings and recommendations on April 10, 2017. ECF No. 24 104. 25 Plaintiff thereafter moved to strike Defendants’ objections as tardy, which motion the 26 magistrate judge denied. ECF Nos. 105, 106. Plaintiff then filed a motion for reconsideration of 27 that order arguing, inter alia, that the court inadvertently miscalculated Defendants’ deadline for 28 filing objections. ECF No. 7. Defendants filed a response conceding that the objections were 1 1 indeed late, but arguing that Plaintiff was not prejudiced by the tardy filing and therefore 2 requesting that the court consider the objections. ECF No. 108. 3 With regard to Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, the Court finds Defendants have the 4 better argument. Because Defendants objections were not substantially late, the Court finds 5 Plaintiff was not prejudiced by the delay, and the Court has—in its discretion—considered those 6 objections. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s order on Plaintiff’s motion to 7 strike, then, is DENIED. Even so, the Court nevertheless finds Defendants’ objections to be 8 unavailing. 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 10 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 11 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 12 analysis. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 107) is DENIED; 15 2. The findings and recommendations filed March 23, 2017 (ECF No. 103), are 16 17 18 19 20 ADOPTED IN FULL; and 2. Defendants’ motion for an order declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and requiring security (ECF No. 88) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 20, 2017 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?