Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01700/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01700-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN E. FIELDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. PATTERSON, et al.,

Defendants.

1:10-cv-01700-LJO-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING THIRD MOTION TO 

EXTEND TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF No. 116.)

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. '

1983. On August 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed a third motion for extension of time to file objections to 

the findings and recommendations entered on March 24, 2016. (ECF No. 116.) On August 9, 

2016, Defendant Patterson filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 117.)

Plaintiff acknowledges that the Court advised him in the June 24, 2016 order that no 

further extensions of time would be granted. (ECF No. 115 at 1:22.) Nonetheless, Plaintiff 

argues that he was unable to meet the Court’s deadline because of delays at the prison out of his 

control. Plaintiff reports that Facility 3A was on lockdown and he was unable to access the law 

library. Plaintiff also claims that the prison did not supply him with envelopes or writing paper, 

Case 1:10-cv-01700-LJO-EPG Document 120 Filed 08/19/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

and that his prescription medications cause him to suffer side effects. 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not acted diligently in preparing and filing his 

objections. Defendant states that Plaintiff has had over four months to gather writing materials 

and prepare his objections, and Plaintiff has instead spent his time pursuing another new lawsuit.

Plaintiff has not shown good cause to be granted a third extension of time. Nearly four 

months have passed since the Court entered the findings and recommendations, which is ample 

time to prepare and file objections. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time is untimely, and

Plaintiff has not explained why he requires access to the law library to prepare objections. 

Moreover, Plaintiff claims that he does not have paper or envelopes, yet he was able to prepare 

and file a seven-page motion for extension of time. 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion 

for extension of time, filed on August 3, 2016, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01700-LJO-EPG Document 120 Filed 08/19/16 Page 2 of 2