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)

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