Williams v. Jackson
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/12/2017 GRANTING 44 Request to the extent that plaintiff shall have another thirty days within which to file objections 40 and 41 Findings and Recommendations. (Hunt, G)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BOBBY JAMES WILLIAMS,
No. 2:16-cv-2567-MCE-EFB P
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. In his October 2, 2017 filing, he states that as of September 6, 2017, he has been
transferred to and from various prisons. He claims that his personal property, including legal
documents, is “missing” and that he “cannot defend” himself in this lawsuit without his property.
ECF No. 44. He requests a court order directing CDCR to locate and produce his property. He
also requests a “90 day extension of time.” Id.
It is not clear what deadline plaintiff wishes to extend in this action. The only deadlines –
which have now expired – were for the parties to file objections within fourteen days to the
court’s September 1, 2017 and September 5, 2017, findings and recommendations. See ECF No.
40 (recommending that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction be denied) & ECF No. 41
(recommending that defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied). In an abundance of caution, the
court will direct the Clerk of the Court to reserve these findings and recommendations upon
plaintiff and grant him a thirty day extension of time to file any objections.
Should any delay in the return of plaintiff’s legal property interfere with his ability to meet
a court-imposed deadline in the future, plaintiff may request that the court grant him an extension
of time, explaining why he has been unable to meet the deadline in the time provided. If plaintiff
seeks additional time on the grounds he did not have adequate access to his legal property, he
must indicate why he is unable to meet the deadline without that property, what specific requests
he has made for access to that property, and how prison officials have responded to those
To the extent plaintiff seeks the return of his personal property, such claims cannot be
adjudicated in this action, where they cannot be properly exhausted through the administrative
appeals process. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam)
and Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004-07 (9th Cir. 2010) (together holding that claims
must be exhausted prior to the filing of the original or supplemental complaint); Jones v. Felker,
No. CIV S-08-0096 KJM EFB P, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13730, at *11-15 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11,
2011); Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (multiple defendants may be joined in an action only where the
suit regards “the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” or “any
question of law or fact common to all defendants”).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s October 2, 2017 request (ECF
No. 44) is granted to the extent that plaintiff shall have another thirty days within which to file
objections to the court’s September 1, 2017 and September 5, 2017 findings and
recommendations. In addition, the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve upon plaintiff a copy of
each findings and recommendations (ECF Nos. 40 & 41).
DATED: October 12, 2017.
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?