(PC) Peets v. Brown et al, No. 2:2018cv02469 - Document 61 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/3/21 DIRECTING the Clerk to serve this order on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and correct the docket to properly link 46 plaintiff's objections, to 39 the findings and recommendations the Magistrate Judge filed on 2/16/21.(Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
(PC) Peets v. Brown et al Doc. 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Louis Peets, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:18-cv-02469-KJM-DMC Plaintiff, v. ORDER Scott Kernan, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 17 §1983. On February 16, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 18 recommending denial of plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, ECF No. 36, and directing the 19 parties to file objections within fourteen (14) days of that filing. ECF No. 39. On March 12, 20 2021, plaintiff requested a 45-day extension to file objections. ECF No. 40. The Magistrate 21 Judge denied that request. ECF No. 41. In the interest of justice, this court sua sponte granted 22 plaintiff’s motion for an extension to file objections. See generally Order (March 29, 2021), ECF 23 No. 43. On April 27, 2021, plaintiff timely filed his objections, which were docketed on May 3, 24 2021. See generally ECF No. 46. 25 A review of the docket reveals plaintiff’s objections were docketed in reference to 26 separate findings and recommendations filed by the Magistrate Judge on March 24, 2021, not 27 those filed on February 16, 2021. Id. On May 14, 2021, the court adopted the February 16 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 findings and recommendations and denied plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. Order (May 14, 2 2021), ECF No. 47. In that order the court states, “[n]o objections to the findings and 3 recommendations have been filed.” In fact, however, plaintiff had filed the timely objections, as 4 noted above. See ECF No. 46. The court lacks jurisdiction to correct the May 14 order because 5 plaintiff filed a notice appealing the court’s denial of the preliminary injunction. See ECF No. 51; 6 Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (plaintiff’s “filing of a notice of 7 appeal . . . confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control 8 over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.”). The court nonetheless acknowledges the 9 docketing error. 10 The court directs the Clerk to serve this order on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and 11 correct the docket to properly link plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 46, to the findings and 12 recommendations the Magistrate Judge filed on February 16, 2021, ECF No. 39. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 DATED: December 3, 2021. 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.