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