(PC) McDaniel v. Lizarraga et al

Filing 48

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/14/2020 PARTIALLY GRANTING 46 Motion for Extension of Time; GRANTING Plaintiff 60 days from the date of this order to file objections to 42 Findings and Recommendations; ORDERING Deputy A ttorney General Arthur Mark to inform the court whether the no phone calls order remains in effect at MCSP and, if so, what arrangements are being made for lawyers to contact their client and vice versa within 30 days from the date of this order; and DENYING Plaintiff's request for leave to file one opposition for each motion to dismiss received from defendants. (Henshaw, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH LEON MCDANIEL, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:19-cv-1136 JAM KJN P v. ORDER JOE LIZARRAGA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding through counsel. On September 9, 2020, counsel 17 18 filed a document styled, “Request for Extension of Time: Per Order in Document 45.” (ECF No. 19 46.) As set forth below, plaintiff’s request is partially granted. First, counsel asked “for an extension of time to respond,” and appended a copy of 20 21 plaintiff’s pro se request for extension of time.1 (ECF No. 46 at 2.) Good cause appearing, the 22 court will grant plaintiff an extension of time, nunc pro tunc, to file objections to the August 7, 23 2020 findings and recommendations. The court is not unsympathetic to the difficulties in 24 representing incarcerated individuals, particularly during this pandemic. But counsel is cautioned 25 that it is incumbent upon counsel to calendar court deadlines and if unable to meet them, seek an 26 27 28 Counsel’s filing is not a model of clarity. He does not specifically identify what court deadlines he seeks to extend. However, because counsel appended plaintiff’s pro se filing that specifically seeks an extension to file objections, the court will grant an extension to do so. 1 1 extension of time before the deadline expires. That said, following a COVID-19 outbreak in 2 plaintiff’s building (37 diagnosed positive, 1 died), counsel states that a “No Phone Calls Order” 3 was issued on July 29, 2020. Good cause appearing, Deputy Attorney General Arthur Mark, 4 counsel for defendants Toralba, Hawkins, Lizarraga, and Micael, shall inform the court whether 5 the no phone calls order remains in effect and if so, what arrangements are being made for 6 lawyers to contact their clients and vice versa. 7 Second, plaintiff’s counsel also asks for leave to file one opposition for each motion to 8 dismiss received from defendants “to avoid wasting the court’s time with multiple filings, with 9 hundreds of exhibits.” (ECF No. 46 at 2.) But plaintiff has already filed oppositions to the 10 pending motions to dismiss. This court issued findings and recommendations as to the first 11 motion to dismiss. To date, all subsequent motions to dismiss are fully briefed. Plaintiff is not 12 entitled to file any additional oppositions to such motions. E.D. L.R. 230(l). Therefore, counsel’s 13 request is denied. Going forward, if plaintiff’s counsel wishes to confer with defense counsel and 14 stipulate to an adjusted method of briefing for future motions, the court would entertain one. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 46) is partially granted. 17 2. Plaintiff is granted sixty days from the date of this order in which to file objections to 18 the August 7, 2020 findings and recommendations. 19 3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, Deputy Attorney General Arthur Mark 20 shall inform the court whether the no phone calls order remains in effect at Mule Creek State 21 Prison and, if so, what arrangements are being made for lawyers to contact their clients and vice 22 versa. 23 4. Plaintiff’s request for leave to file one opposition for each motion to dismiss received 24 from defendants is denied. 25 Dated: September 14, 2020 26 27 /mcda1136.ext 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?