(PC) Crane v. Rodriguez, et al, No. 2:2015cv00208 - Document 33 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/10/15 partially granting 28 Motion for Extension of time. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this order in which to file objections to the 9/22/15 findings and recommendations. No further extensions of time to file such objections will be granted. Plaintiff's motion for protective order 30 is denied as duplicative of the 10/13/15. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD JOSEPH CRANE, 12 13 14 No. 2:15-cv-0208 TLN KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER RODRIGUEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On September 14, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief. On September 22, 18 2015, the undersigned recommended that plaintiff’s motion be denied. On October 29, 2015, the 19 district court adopted the findings and recommendations and denied plaintiff’s motion for 20 injunctive relief. 21 On November 2, 2015, plaintiff’s request for extension of time to file objections to the 22 findings and recommendations was entered on the court’s docket as filed on October 30, 2015. 23 However, plaintiff’s request for extension was dated October 20, 2015. “[T[he Houston mailbox 24 rule applies to § 1983 complaints filed by pro se prisoners.” Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 25 1109 (9th Cir. 2009), citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76 (1988). Thus, under the 26 mailbox rule, plaintiff’s request for extension of time was submitted on October 20, 2015. 27 However, plaintiff sought an extension of time two days before the filing deadline based on work 28 he was preparing for other cases. Plaintiff is advised that he is required to diligently prosecute 1 this case despite ongoing deadlines in other cases. In an abundance of caution, plaintiff is granted 2 thirty days in which to file objections to the September 22, 2015 findings and recommendations, 3 at which time the district court will reconsider the October 29, 2015 order. No further extensions 4 of time will be granted. If no objections are timely filed, the October 29, 2015 order will stand. 5 On November 4, 2015, plaintiff filed a duplicate motion for protective order. In his 6 request for extension of time, plaintiff expressed concern that his earlier motion may have been 7 destroyed by prison staff, and was unsure whether the court received the motion. However, 8 plaintiff’s motion was received on October 13, 2015, and was denied on October 20, 2015. 9 Plaintiff is cautioned that he should not resubmit motions as they congest the case docket and 10 usurp limited judicial resources. Plaintiff should allow the court sufficient time to review and 11 rule on motions. Plaintiff is cautioned that a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis may suffer 12 restricted access to the court where it is determined that he has filed excessive motions in a 13 pending action. DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Tripati v. 14 Beaman, 878 F2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff’s motion is denied as duplicative of the 15 October 13, 2015 motion. 16 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. Plaintiff’s October 30, 2015 motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 28) is partially 18 19 20 granted; 2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file objections to the September 22, 2015 findings and recommendations; 21 3. No further extensions of time to file such objections will be granted; and 22 4. Plaintiff’s motion for protective order (ECF No. 30) is denied as duplicative of the 23 October 13, 2015 motion. 24 Dated: November 10, 2015 25 26 cran0208.36 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.