(PC) Bradway v. Rao, No. 2:2020cv00436 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/16/2020 CONSTRUING 19 Filing as a Request for Extension of Time to File Objections to 13 Findings and Recommendations; ORDERING Clerk to edit 19 Filing docket entry accordingly; DENYING 19 Request; and ORDERING Plaintiff's objections to 13 Findings and Recommendations and his amended complaint are due on or before 5/29/2020. (Henshaw, R)

Download PDF
(PC) Bradway v. Rao Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GABRIEL BRADWAY, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:20-cv-0436 JAM KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER DR. YASHODARA RAO, Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 16, 2020, the undersigned recommended that plaintiff’s 19 motions for temporary restraining order be denied without prejudice. On March 30, 2020, 20 plaintiff was granted sixty days in which to file his amended complaint, and to file objections to 21 the findings and recommendations. However, on April 13, 2020, plaintiff filed a document 22 styled, “Affidavit for Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” (ECF 23 No. 19.) Plaintiff asks the court “to review this affidavit for delayed time in Objections to 24 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” noting plaintiff was granted 60 days to 25 amend the complaint, but then plaintiff claims he “is unclear about the time extension also for 26 filing” objections. (ECF No. 19 at 1.) Plaintiff then sets forth three specific objections. 27 However, in his proof of service, plaintiff characterizes his filing as an “Affidavit for Time Delay 28 of Filing” objections. (ECF No. 19 at 3.) 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In an abundance of caution, the undersigned construes plaintiff’s filing as a request for 2 extension of time to file objections. However, on March 30, 2020, plaintiff was granted sixty 3 days in which to file objections and his amended complaint. (ECF No. 17.) Therefore, his April 4 13, 2020 request is redundant and unnecessary, and is denied. 5 That said, the court notes that the objections cited by plaintiff indicate that he intends to 6 rectify in his amended complaint his failure to allege personal jurisdiction, and attempts to 7 explain or clarify the nature of the injunctive relief he seeks. Plaintiff is advised that it is 8 inappropriate to attempt to change the nature of his request for injunctive relief in objections to 9 findings and recommendations. If plaintiff concedes that his prior motions were lacking or 10 inadequate, plaintiff may withdraw such motions and file a different motion along with his 11 amended complaint or include his request for injunctive relief in his amended pleading. By doing 12 so, plaintiff would not be required to file further objections. 13 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. Plaintiff’s April 13, 2020 filing (ECF No. 19) is construed as plaintiff’s request for 15 extension of time to file objections to the March 16, 2020 findings and recommendations (ECF 16 No. 13); the Clerk of the Court shall edit the docket entry accordingly; 17 2. Plaintiff’s request (ECF No. 19) is denied; and 19 3. Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 13), as well as his amended complaint, are due on or before May 29, 2020 (ECF No. 17). 20 Dated: April 16, 2020 18 21 22 23 /brad0436.extd 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.