(PC) Jacobsen v. Maldinado, No. 1:2017cv00101 - Document 39 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER overruling Objections to Findings and Recommendations 35 signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/7/2018. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL JACOBSEN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 MALDINADO, 15 Case No. 1:17-cv-00101-BAM (PC) ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF No. 35) Defendant. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff Michael Jacobsen (“Plaintiff”) is a county detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 30, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and 20 recommendations recommending the dismissal of the Doe Defendants from this action, without 21 prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to identify the Doe Defendants and initiated service of process 22 against them within the time required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (ECF No. 24.) 23 Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any 24 objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3–4.) 25 On December 28, 2017, more than a week after the deadline to file objections had expired, 26 Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address, as well as a request for re-service of the Court’s 27 recent orders. (ECF No. 30.) On January 3, 2018, the Court directed the Clerk’s Office to re- 28 serve the Court’s November 30, 2017 findings and recommendations, as well as the Court’s 1 1 2 December 14, 2017 discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 32.) On January 10, 2018, the undersigned adopted the pending findings and 3 recommendations, without objections from either party. (ECF No. 33.) On January 22, 2018, 4 Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. The objections are dated January 5 9, 2018. (ECF No. 35.) 6 In his objections, Plaintiff states that he first received the Magistrate Judge’s findings and 7 recommendations on January 8, 2018, after they were re-served by the Clerk’s Office. Plaintiff 8 objects to the dismissal of the Doe Defendants, stating that he sent a discovery request to the 9 Defendants requesting the names of all the officers working in booking that day with Defendant 10 Maldonado. Plaintiff states that all of his requests were objected to and none of the names were 11 provided. Plaintiff further states that because he has been in and out of custody, he no longer 12 possesses a copy of the request or the original complaint, of which he requests a copy. Plaintiff 13 attaches a copy of a new discovery request he plans to submit, and states that he will file a motion 14 to compel if the information is not provided. (Id.) 15 The Court finds Plaintiff’s objections unpersuasive. Although Plaintiff states that he did 16 not receive the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations until January 8, 2018, Plaintiff 17 has been granted multiple opportunities to provide sufficient information to identify the Doe 18 Defendants since the complaint was screened in June 2017. Plaintiff was further provided with 19 multiple warnings that his failure to do so would result in dismissal of the Doe Defendants from 20 this action. Nevertheless, Plaintiff failed to file either a motion to substitute or a status report 21 explaining the actions taken to locate the names of the Doe Defendants, pursuant to the Court’s 22 October 6, 2017 order. 23 Further, the dismissal of the Doe Defendants from this action was without prejudice, 24 mitigating any potential prejudice to Plaintiff. The deadline for the completion of all discovery is 25 August 14, 2018, and all stipulated amendments or motions to amend the pleadings are due by 26 June 14, 2018. Plaintiff may continue his efforts through discovery, and may seek to amend the 27 complaint to name the Doe Defendants once they have been identified. Further, as Plaintiff has 28 noted, he may file a motion to compel in the event of any discovery dispute. 2 1 With respect to Plaintiff’s request for a copy of the complaint, Plaintiff has been advised 2 that generally, the Clerk’s Office will only provide copies at a cost of $0.50 per page. While the 3 Court has previously provided Plaintiff with copies of court orders, as well as copies of the 4 complaint, these were provided as a courtesy. Plaintiff’s repeated incarcerations do not constitute 5 good cause for requests for copies. No further such requests will be granted or accommodated. It 6 is Plaintiff’s responsibility to ensure mail reaches him, and that he maintains his own copies of 7 documents he has filed with the Court. 8 9 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s December 4, 2017 findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 43), are OVERRULED. 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 7, 2018 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 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.
