Wolinski v. Lewis et al

Filing 77

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 09/11/2023 DENYING the 76 Request for Extension of Time to File Objections to the 75 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING the 76 Request that prison personnel at California Health Care Facility be ordered to give him 10 hours a week of time to do research for his objections to the pending findings and recommendations as moot. (Spichka, K.)

Case 2:17-cv-00583-MCE-AC Document 77 Filed 09/11/23 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KRZYSZTOF F. WOLINSKI,

12

No. 2:17-cv-0583 MCE AC P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

J. LEWIS, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff has filed a motion for an extension of time to file objections to the August 21,

17
18

2023, findings and recommendations. ECF No. 76. In the motion, plaintiff also asks the court to

19

order California Health Care Facility Warden Gena Jones or Librarian S. Koubong to provide

20

reasonable accommodations and ten hours per week of access to “ADA, Computer with

21

Microsoft Word Processor.” Id. at 1-2. For the reasons stated below, both requests will be

22

denied.
In support of plaintiff’s requests, he appears to state that he has a disability as defined

23
24

under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title II, Section 504. ECF No. 76 at 2. Plaintiff

25

contends that he accordingly needs more time to draft court papers and access the prison’s ADA

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

Case 2:17-cv-00583-MCE-AC Document 77 Filed 09/11/23 Page 2 of 3
1

computer in the prison law library. Plaintiff seeks additional time to file his objections and do the

2

“required research” so he can “cure his deficiencies” in the complaint.1 Id. at 2.

3

In the pending findings and recommendations, the court found that both of plaintiff’s

4

claims are suitable to proceed against six defendants. ECF No. 75 at 2-4. The court also found

5

that those claims do not lie against eight additional named defendants, and it has been

6

recommended that those individuals be dismissed. Id. at 5-6. Finally, the court found that

7

because plaintiff had been given two opportunities to amend and had been given clear instruction

8

on how to do so each time, providing plaintiff with a third opportunity to amend the complaint

9

was futile and would not serve the interests of justice. Id. at 5.

10

The only possible objections that plaintiff could make are to the recommendation that

11

certain defendants be dismissed and to the finding that a third opportunity to amend would be

12

pointless. Drafting objections to these findings and recommendations does not require legal

13

research. This case has been on the court’s docket since 2017 when defendants removed it from

14

state court. ECF Nos. 1, 2 (March 2017 docketing of initial complaint, removal notice). Six and

15

a half years, a lengthy challenge to removal,2 two amended complaints,3 and one grant of

16

sanctions against plaintiff later,4 two viable claims have been culled from plaintiff’s original 230-

17

plus page complaint.5 Enough is enough. Additional delay without good cause is inappropriate

18

here.

19

///

20
1

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff also alleges several rules violation reports have been filed against him because he filed
a grievance related to this matter. See ECF No. 76 at 2. Plaintiff has no constitutional right to be
free from having false rules violation reports filed against him. Freeman v. Rideout, 808 F.2d
949, 951 (2d Cir. 1986). Furthermore, any marginally alleged violation of First Amendment right
made in the instant motion is pure conjecture and is wholly unsupported. See generally ECF No.
76. In any event, the allegations have nothing to do with whether a grant of an extension of time
to file objections should be granted. Accordingly, the court does not consider these claims in this
order.
2
See ECF Nos. 7, 14, 28 (plaintiff’s motion to remand; denial of same).
3
See ECF Nos. 24, 69 (plaintiff’s first and second amended complaints).
4
See ECF Nos. 29, 36, 40 (defendants’ sanctions request; grant of same). Plaintiff was ordered
to pay $1,000.00 to defendants for not following court rules; intentionally filing altered
paperwork, and filing false allegations about a defendant and his counsel. ECF Nos. 36 at 5-8; 40.
5
See ECF No. 2 (original 239-page complaint).
2

Case 2:17-cv-00583-MCE-AC Document 77 Filed 09/11/23 Page 3 of 3
1

Plaintiff has been provided an opportunity to object to the portions of the findings and

2

recommendations with which he disagrees, and because legal research is not necessary to identify

3

those matters and invoke the district judge’s plenary review, the requested extension of time is

4

not supported by good cause. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for an additional thirty days to file

5

objections will be denied. His request that prison staff at CHCF be ordered to give him ten hours

6

a week in the prison law library in order do to research to file such objections will also be denied

7

as moot. Because the period for plaintiff to file objections has passed, the findings and

8

recommendations will immediately be referred to the District Judge currently assigned to this

9

matter.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file objections to the findings and

12
13

recommendations issued August 21, 2023 (ECF No. 76 at 1-3) is DENIED, and
2. Plaintiff’s request that prison personnel at California Health Care Facility be ordered

14

to give him ten hours a week of time to do research for his objections to the pending findings and

15

recommendations (ECF No. 76 at 1-3) is also DENIED as moot.

16

DATED: September 11, 2023.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3