(PC) McDaniel v. Lizarraga et al, No. 2:2019cv01136 - Document 64 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/23/2020 STRIKING 60 Motion for Extension of Time as duplicative of 59 Motion for Extension of Time; ORDERING Clerk to strike 60 Motion for Extension of Time; GRANTING 59 Motion for Extension of Time; and ORDERING Plaintiff to file objections to 54 Findings and Recommendations within 60 days from the date of this order. (Henshaw, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) McDaniel v. Lizarraga et al Doc. 64 Case 2:19-cv-01136-JAM-KJN Document 64 Filed 11/23/20 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 Charles Kelly Kilgore (SBN 173520) Em: Idefendem@gmail.com 9025 Wilshire Blvd. Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Ph: (310) 994-9883 Fx: (413) 691-7310 Attorney for Plaintiff: Joseph McDaniel 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Vs. ) ) ) JOE LIZARRAGA, ET AL., WARDEN, ) MCSP; DR. CARMELINO GALANG, MD, ) SJGH; MS. KELLY MARTINEZ, RN, ) MCSP; DR. JERRY CROOKS, MD, SJGH; ) DR. ROBERT M. HAWKINS, MD, MCSP; ) DR. MOHAMED IBRAHIM, MD, DHM; MS. ) ANABEL TORALBA, RN, MCSP; MS. L. ) MICAEL, RN, MCSP; DR. JAMES LIN, ) ) MD, MHS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND IN ) THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITES, ) ) Defendants JOSEPH MCDANIEL CASE:2:19-cv-01136 JAM KJN P [PROPOSED] ORDER re REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME: PER DOCUMENTS 54 and 42 Judge: The Honorable Kendall J. Newman Trial Date: None set Action Filed: June 20, 2019 22 23 24 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding through counsel. On November 13, 25 2020, plaintiff’s counsel filed two motions for sixty-days extensions of time, both signed 26 by counsel under penalty of perjury. However, both motions appear to be identical. 27 Although counsel docketed the motions as applying to findings and recommendations 28 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-01136-JAM-KJN Document 64 Filed 11/23/20 Page 2 of 3 1 2 3 4 docketed as ECF Nos. 42 and 54, the motions do not specifically reference the August 7, 2020 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 42). In addition, the motions state that this is “my first request for enlarment [sic] of time in which to file Plaintiff’s 5 ‘OBJECTIONS TO THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 6 MAGISTRATE JUDGE’ in the above-named case.” (ECF Nos. 59 at 1-2; 60 at 1-2.) 7 While such statement is true as to the October 15, 2020 findings and 8 9 recommendations, such statement is not true as to the August 7, 2020 findings and 10 recommendations.1 Thus, the court will not consider either motion as applying to the 11 August 7, 2020 findings and recommendations. Because the motions are duplicative, 12 the second motion is stricken. Just as counsel was previously advised concerning his 13 14 obligation to calendar court deadlines (ECF No. 48 at 1), counsel should carefully 15 review documents before filing them on the official court record. In an abundance of 16 caution, plaintiff’s counsel is granted fourteen days in which to file a motion for 17 further extension of time to file objections to the August 7, 2020 findings and 18 19 recommendations.2 20 25 Counsel may recall that plaintiff filed an untimely pro se motion to extend the deadline to file objections to the August 7, 2020, which was stricken, and counsel was granted an extension of time to properly request an extension of time. On September 14, 2020, plaintiff was granted sixty days in which to file objections to the August 7, 2020 findings and recommendations. Thus, plaintiff has had over three months in which to prepare and file objections. 26 2 21 22 23 24 27 28 1 Should counsel again request an extension of time to file objections to the August 7, 2020 findings and recommendations, he should provide substantial cause to support such request, and explain his delay. For example, in the November 13, 2020 motion, counsel states that he is “awaiting important documents” from a Case 2:19-cv-01136-JAM-KJN Document 64 Filed 11/23/20 Page 3 of 3 1 2 Plaintiff’s first request to extend time to file objections to the October 15, 2020 findings and recommendations is granted. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s November 13, 2020 motion (ECF No. 60) is duplicative of his first motion (ECF No. 59) and is stricken. 2. The Clerk of the Court shall strike the second motion (ECF No. 60). 3. Plaintiff’s November 13, 2020 motion (ECF No. 59) is granted. 4. Plaintiff shall file objections to the October 15, 2020 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 54) within sixty days from the date of this order. Dated: November 23, 2020 13 14 15 16 17 /mcda1136.ext.dup 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 California state agency, but he does not indicate when he requested such documents.
]]>
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.
