Bradley v. Tuolumne County Superior Court et al, No. 1:2015cv00531 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER RE: Plaintiff's Objections to Findings and Recommendations 7 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 03/01/2016. (Martin-Gill, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODNEY EUGENE BRADLEY, 12 13 Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:15-cv-00531-LJO-EPG ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 TUOLUMNE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, ELEANOR PROVOST, and DONALD SEGERSTROM, (ECF No. 7) Defendants. Plaintiff Rodney Bradley (“Plaintiff”) appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action on April 6, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) On January 12, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that the case be dismissed without leave to amend. (ECF 21 22 23 No. 7.) The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff with instructions that any objections must be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff did not file any objections within that period. 24 On February 18, 2016, the Court issued an Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations in 25 Full, which denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and dismissed the Complaint 26 without leave to amend. (ECF No. 8.) The case was closed and final judgment was entered. 27 On February 25, 2016, one week after the Order Adopting Findings and 28 1 1 Recommendations issued, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 2 Recommendations, arguing that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider a federal 3 constitutional claim regarding a state law. Plaintiff asks that “someone there at the district court 4 clue-in Judge Erica, and reverse her pathetic decision.” (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff dated his 5 6 7 8 objections “February 10, 2016,” although the objections were filed with the Court on February 25, 2016. As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s objections are untimely and not subject to mandatory 9 review. Although the objections are dated within the thirty day objection period specified in the 10 Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff didto file the objections with the Court until well after 11 12 13 14 the objection period had elapsed. The objections were thus not filed within the specified period and are untimely. Smith v. Frank, 923 F.2d 139, 141 (9th Cir. 1991) (“The consensus is that ‘[p]apers and pleadings . . . are considered filed when they are placed in the possession of the 15 clerk of the court.’”). As a result, Plaintiff’s objections are not entitled to review by the Court. 16 Gonzales v. Harris, 514 F.Supp. 991, 993 (E.D. Cal. 1981) (“the mandatory de novo review 17 procedure applies only when objections are timely filed.”). 18 19 Regardless, however, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections and determines that they do not support reconsideration of the Court’s previous order. Plaintiff is correct that a federal 20 21 court may have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional challenge to a state law. 22 But the Findings and Recommendations did not recommend dismissal of the Complaint because 23 the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. Rather, they recommended 24 dismissal because the Court was unable to provide the relief that Plaintiff sought. As explained in 25 the Findings and Recommendations, federal courts must decline when asked to “interfere with 26 pending state criminal or civil proceedings.” Aiona v. Judiciary of State of Haw., 17 F.3d 1244, 27 1248 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971) (“The concept does not 28 2 1 mean blind deference to ‘States’ Rights’ any more than it means centralization of control over 2 every important issue in our National Government and its courts. The Framers rejected both these 3 courses. What the concept does represent is a system in which there is sensitivity to the legitimate 4 interests of both State and National Governments, and in which the National Government, 5 6 anxious though it may be to vindicate and protect federal rights and federal interests, always 7 endeavors to do so in ways that will not unduly interfere with the legitimate activities of the 8 States.”). Plaintiff’s traffic proceedings in Tuolumne County Superior Court are pending state 9 criminal proceedings and the Court must not interfere. 10 11 12 13 14 15 In any case, Plaintiff’s objections do not speak to the issues of judicial immunity and mootness discussed within the Findings and Recommendations, both of which constitute independent bases to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint without leave to amend. To the extent Plaintiff’s objections constitute a request to reconsider the previous order dismissing his Complaint, that request is DENIED. 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill March 1, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
