(PC) Villescas v. Miranda et al, No. 2:2015cv01861 - Document 33 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/8/2016 ORDERING 19 Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time is DENIED; and Plaintiff's response 21 is DISREGARDED; the findings and recommendations 18 are ADOPTED in FULL; Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order 11 , and Plaintiff's supplemental briefing in support of this motion 17 , are DENIED without prejudice.(Reader, L)

Download PDF
(PC) Villescas v. Miranda et al Doc. 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALBERTO VILLESCAS, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-1861 TLN KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER RAFAEL MIRANDA, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 30, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. 23 The magistrate judge recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, filed 24 October 8, 2015, be denied. On November 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of 25 time to file a response to the opposition to his motion filed on October 23, 2015 by the Office of 26 the Attorney General. (ECF No. 19.) On November 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed this response. (ECF 27 No. 21.) On November 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 28 (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff’s objections are similar to his November 5, 2015 responsive pleading. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Because the magistrate judge did not authorize Plaintiff to file a responsive pleading, and 2 because Plaintiff’s response is similar to his objections, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time 3 to file his response is denied and the response is disregarded. The Court instead has reviewed and 4 considered Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 22.) 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 6 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 7 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 8 analysis. 9 10 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 19) is denied and Plaintiff’s response (ECF No. 21) is disregarded; 12 2. The findings and recommendations filed October 30, 2015, are adopted in full; 13 3. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 11), and Plaintiff’s 14 supplemental briefing in support of this motion (ECF No. 17), are denied without prejudice. 15 Dated: January 8, 2016 16 17 18 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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.