Juarez v. Butts et al
ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 6/28/2017 ORDERING 29 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED; Plaintiff's 30 Motion for Extension of Time is DENIED; and Plaintiff's 31 Objections will be DISREGARDED. (Reader, L)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:15-cv-1996 JAM DB P
CARMEN BUTTS, et al.,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 17, 2017, the magistrate judge dismissed plaintiff’s
first amended complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim under § 1983. Plaintiff was given
thirty days to file a second amended complaint. On March 16, 2017, he did so. Also on February
17, the magistrate judge recommended denial of plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction
requiring defendants to provide plaintiff with pain medication. The findings and
recommendations advised plaintiff that he must file any objections within fourteen days. Plaintiff
did not file objections or seek an extension of time within the time specified. On March 30, 2017,
this court adopted the findings and recommendations.
In a document filed here on April 17, 2017, plaintiff moves for “reconsideration” of the
magistrate judge’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 29.) The
court construes this motion as objections to the findings and recommendations. Since then,
plaintiff has also filed a motion for an extension of time to file objections to the findings and
recommendations (ECF No. 30), and objections (ECF No. 31). Plaintiff’s objections are
untimely and will be denied. Plaintiff’s contentions that he was unable to file timely objections
due to the lack of library access does not ring true because plaintiff was able to file a timely
second amended complaint on March 16. The court also notes that in these filings, plaintiff
complains not just about the lack of pain medication, which was the subject of his request for
injunctive relief, but also about library access, access to his property, and retaliation. Plaintiff is
advised that if he has pending court deadlines in this case, which he currently does not have, and
is unable to get access to the library or his legal materials due to his custodial status, he may seek
help from the court.
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s April 17, 2017 motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 29) is denied;
2. Plaintiff’s April 27, 2017 motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 30) is denied; and
3. Plaintiff’s June 2, 2017 objections (ECF No. 31) will be disregarded.
DATED: June 28, 2017
/s/ John A. Mendez_________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
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?