(PC) Eiland v. Sacramento County Main Jail Medical Facility et al, No. 2:2018cv01042 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 08/07/18 VACATING 11 the Findings and Recommendations. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODNEY CHARLES EILAND, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:18-cv-1042 MCE KJN P v. ORDER JOHN AND/OR JANE DOE, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 17 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 5, 2018, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed, and he was 19 granted thirty days in which to file an amended complaint. Thirty days passed, and plaintiff did 20 not file an amended complaint. On July 17, 2018, the undersigned recommended that this action 21 be dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint. On July 19, 2018, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and on July 30, 2018, he filed 22 23 objections. Plaintiff claims that because the thirty days are calculated using only weekdays, 24 Mondays through Fridays, and also exclude federal holidays, his amended complaint was timely 25 filed. 26 Plaintiff is advised that court deadlines are calculated on calendar days, not just weekdays. 27 But federal holidays are not included. Thus, plaintiff’s amended complaint was due no later than 28 July 6, 2018. A pro se prisoner filing is dated from the date prisoner delivers it to prison 1 1 authorities. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76 (1988). Under this mailbox rule, plaintiff’s 2 amended complaint was filed on July 17, 2018, the date he submitted his filing to prison officials 3 for mailing. (ECF No. 12 at 8.) Thus, plaintiff’s amended complaint was untimely. 4 However, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se and apparently misunderstood how court 5 deadlines are calculated, the findings and recommendations will be vacated, and the amended 6 complaint will be screened by separate order. Nevertheless, plaintiff is cautioned to comply with 7 all future court deadlines. 8 9 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the July 17, 2018 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 11) are vacated. Dated: August 7, 2018 11 12 13 eila1042.vac 14 15 16 17 18 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.
