Shove v. McDonald et al

Filing 96

ORDER by Judge James Donato denying 85 Motion for Leave to File; denying 87 Motion to Compel; granting 92 Administrative Motion for extension of time. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

THEODORE SHOVE,
Plaintiff,

8

Re: Dkt. Nos. 85, 87, 92
MCDONALD, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER ON MOTIONS

v.

9
10

Case No. 14-cv-02903-JD

12
13

This is a civil rights case brought pro se by a state prisoner. The Court granted defendants’

14

motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. The case was dismissed and closed

15

after plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded in light of two

16

recently decided cases that clarified what dismissals may constitute strikes. Docket No. 50. On

17

August 8, 2017, the case was reopened and defendants filed a second motion to revoke plaintiff’s

18

IFP status identifying different cases not raised in the first motion. The Court summarily denied

19

the motion in light of the Ninth Circuit cases cited in the remand order and the facts in this case.

20

Defendants now move for leave to file a motion of reconsideration of the order denying the

21

second motion to revoke plaintiff’s IFP status. Pursuant to Northern District of California Civil

22

Local rule 7-9(b)(3), the Court does not find a manifest failure to warrant leave to file a motion for

23

reconsideration. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to compel, yet failed to first seek the discovery

24

from defendants whom have indicated that they will treat the motion as a request for production of

25

documents and will respond to it. Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
CONCLUSION

26
27
28

1.
is DENIED.

Defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 85)

1
2
3
4
5

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery and for sanctions (Docket No. 87) is

DENIED as frivolous and because defendants will respond to the motion as a discovery request.
3.

Good cause appearing, defendants’ request for an extension of time (Docket No.

92) is GRANTED. Defendants may file a dispositive motion by April 6, 2018.
4.

It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

6

Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice

7

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to

8

do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of

9

Civil Procedure 41(b).

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 18, 2018

12
13
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

THEODORE SHOVE,

Case No. 14-cv-02903-JD

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

MCDONALD, et al.,
Defendants.

8
9
10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on January 18, 2018, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18

Theodore Shove ID: G11092
San Quentin State Prison
San Quentin, CA 94974

19
20

Dated: January 18, 2018

21
22
23

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

27
28
3