Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01658/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01658-22/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL J. MITCHELL

Plaintiff, No. 2:08-CV-1658 JAM DAD P

vs.

SNOWDEN, et al. ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 8, 2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Since

then, plaintiff has received no fewer than five extensions of time from the court in which to file

an opposition to that pending motion for summary judgment. (Docket Nos. 88, 90, 93, 96 &

103.) In the court’s September 19, 2012, order granting his request for extension of time,

plaintiff was first told that no further extensions of time would be granted for this purpose. 

(Docket No. 96 at 2.) The last extension of time to oppose summary judgment, granted by the

court on January 23, 2013, was for fourteen days. (Docket No. 103) In granting that final

extension of time the court also vacated it’s the previously filed recommendation that this action

be dismissed due to plaintiff’s earlier failure to file an opposition to defendants’ motion for

/////

1

Case 2:08-cv-01658-JAM-DAD Document 105 Filed 02/21/13 Page 1 of 3
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

summary judgment and warned plaintiff once again that no further extensions of time would be

granted for this purpose. (Id. at 2.) 

1

Rather than file an opposition brief setting forth his arguments against summary

judgment as ordered by the court, plaintiff on February 15, 2013, plaintiff filed an untimely

three-and-a-half page explanation of why he needs yet more time to oppose defendants’ summary

judgment motion. (See Docket No. 104. ) The court’s last order clearly stated there would be no 2

further extensions of time granted to plaintiff for that purpose “absent yet another showing of

extraordinary circumstances.” (Order at 2, Docket No. 103.) Plaintiff has not made such a

showing. Therefore his request for another extension will be denied. 

Plaintiff was noticed throughout his communications with the court that failure to

oppose a motion for summary judgment could result in a recommendation of dismissal pursuant

to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Indeed, the court has made that

recommendation once before due to plaintiff’s failure to file opposition to the pending motion. 

(See Vacated Findings and Recommendations (Docket No. 98) filed Oct. 30, 2012.) Under these

circumstances, and in a case that has been pending before the court since July of 2008, plaintiff 

has simply left the court with no alternative but to make that recommendation once again. 

///// 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for an extension

 The recommendation of dismissal was vacated and the final extension of time to file 1

opposition was granted only because the court found that plaintiff had made a credible showing

that he had prepared his opposition brief and gave it to correctional staff for mailing but that it

somehow was not mailed. (Docket No. 103 at 2.) Because the opposition was purportedly

already drafted and merely needed to be re-mailed, the court granted the final fourteen day

extension of time to plaintiff. (Id.) 

 Therein, plaintiff maintains that he did not keep a copy of his opposition to the pending 2

summary judgment motion, but rather gave the original to correctional staff for mailing and that

it then was apparently lost. (Docket No. 104.) Plaintiff represents that he’s been unable to

reproduce his opposition in the time provided by the court and that within days he will submit the

portion of his opposition that he has completed. (Id.) Five more days have passed since

plaintiff’s untimely response to the court’s January 23, 2013 order and no additional documents

have been received by the court from plaintiff.

2

Case 2:08-cv-01658-JAM-DAD Document 105 Filed 02/21/13 Page 2 of 3
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

of time to file opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 104) is

denied.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and his

failure to comply with the court’s orders.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

objections shall be filed and served within seven days after service of the objections. The parties

are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: February 20, 2013.

hm

mitch1658.46fr

3

Case 2:08-cv-01658-JAM-DAD Document 105 Filed 02/21/13 Page 3 of 3