(PC) Johnson v. Dovey et al, No. 1:2008cv00640 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER DENYING Request for Extension of Time to File Motion for Reconsideration 12 , 15 ; OJBECTIONS to Findings and Recommendations 8 Due Within Thirty (30) Days of Service of This Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 2/19/09: Objections to F&R due by 3/24/2009. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
(PC) Johnson v. Dovey et al Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 GARRISON S. JOHNSON, 11 12 13 14 CASE NO. 1:08-CV-00640-LJO-DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. JOHN DOVEY, et al., (Docs. 12, 15) Defendants. OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS [8] DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER 15 16 / 17 18 Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se 19 and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this 20 action on May 8, 2008. (Doc. 1). On November 3, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a 21 temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. On December 15, 2008, the undersigned 22 issued a Findings and Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff’s motion to be denied. (Doc. 23 8). Plaintiff was advised that he could file an objection within thirty days. On January 23, 2009, the 24 Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for a thirty day extension of time to file his objection. (Doc. 10). 25 Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file an 26 application for reconsideration. (Docs. 12, 15). Local Rule 78-230(k) governs applications for 27 reconsideration. The Rule states in relevant part, “[w]henever any motion has been granted or denied 28 in whole or in part, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration is made upon the same or any 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 alleged different set of facts, it shall be the duty of counsel to present to the Judge or Magistrate 2 Judge to whom such subsequent motion is made an affidavit or brief, as appropriate, setting forth 3 the material facts and circumstances surrounding each motion for which reconsideration is sought...” 4 In the instant case, the Findings and Recommendations have not yet been addressed by the 5 District Judge, and so Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and/or injunctive relief has 6 not yet been denied or granted in whole or in part. Local Rule 78-230(k). A motion for 7 reconsideration is premature at this point, and accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of 8 time to file such a motion is DENIED. 9 Plaintiff has also requested a thirty day extension of time, from the date that the Court rules 10 on his request to file a motion for reconsideration, to file his objection to the Findings and 11 Recommendations. Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED, and his objection to the Findings and 12 Recommendations, filed December 15, 2008, is due no later than thirty (30) days from the date of 13 service of this order. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 14 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is again advised that failure to file objections within the specified 15 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 16 Cir. 1991). 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a February 19, 2009 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2