Hicks v. Hamkar et al

Filing 70

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/27/16 denying Motions for Reconsideration 67 , 69 . (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL HICKS, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:13-cv-1687 KJM CKD P (TEMP) Plaintiff, v. ORDER BEHROZ HAMKAR et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 6, 2016, this court granted in part plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to 20 file objections to this court’s findings and recommendations filed December 3, 2015, and to file 21 an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss filed on December 10, 2015. Plaintiff has filed 22 two motions for reconsideration asking for more time because he recently transferred to Salinas 23 Valley State Prison, has not yet received his property, and is purportedly unable to do anything 24 with respect to this case. 25 The court will deny plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration. As an initial matter, plaintiff 26 still has almost a month to comply with the court’s January 6, 2016, order granting him additional 27 time to file his objections and opposition. Moreover, with respect to filing objections, plaintiff is 28 advised that the purpose of filing objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and 1 recommendations is merely to identify the portions of the findings and recommendations to which 2 objection is made and the basis of the objection. The district judge will conduct a de novo review 3 of the findings and recommendations. The purpose of such objections is not to provide the parties 4 an opportunity to conduct additional research and present new arguments that were not included 5 in the motion heard by the assigned magistrate judge. 6 Also, with respect to filing an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiff 7 appears to address at least some of defendants’ arguments in his second motion for 8 reconsideration. For example, plaintiff argues that his complaint does not merely raise negligence 9 or medical malpractice claims. He also argues that defendants are not entitled to qualified 10 immunity. In any event, plaintiff’s recent filings indicate that he is in fact capable of working on 11 this case. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, if the deadline for filing his opposition to 12 defendants’ motion to dismiss draws near and plaintiff feels he does not have enough time to 13 prepare and serve his opposition, he may file a request for an extension of time to oppose 14 defendants’ motion. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration 16 (Doc. Nos. 67 & 69) are denied. 17 Dated: January 27, 2016 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 ec hick1687.36objs 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?