Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01167/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01167-3/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL J. MITCHELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SNOWDEN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1167 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff has filed a statement informing the court that he remains assigned to a Mental 

Health Crisis Bed unit, without access to pen and paper, and has also recently had surgery and 

therefore cannot write. Plaintiff attaches, presumably for reference, a copy of the Notice of 

Electronic Filing of this Court’s August 10, 2016 Order (ECF No. 29) granting plaintiff an 

extension of time to file objections to pending Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 23). 

Although the instant filing might reasonably be construed as a request for further extension of 

time, plaintiff gives no indication of the expected duration of his current circumstances. 

Accordingly, it is impossible for the court to determine how much of an extension plaintiff may 

be seeking. 

 Detailed legal arguments are not necessary in order for plaintiff to object to Findings and 

Recommendations. Moreover, review of the June 10, 2016 Findings and Recommendations in 

this case (ECF No. 23) demonstrates that the undersigned’s recommendation this action be 

Case 2:15-cv-01167-TLN-AC Document 31 Filed 09/14/16 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

dismissed with prejudice is mandated by applicable legal principles based on undisputed facts. 

There are no foreseeable grounds upon which plaintiff can reasonably refute the pertinent facts or 

dispute the binding legal authority. Nonetheless, in order to protect plaintiff’s rights, secure 

independent review by the assigned district judge, and preserve issues for appeal, the court will 

construe plaintiff’s recent submission as an objection to the recommendation that this action be 

dismissed with prejudice, and to any and all findings and fact and conclusions of law on which 

that recommendation is based. Plaintiff need take no further action in order for his objections to 

be considered. The district court will consider the arguments that plaintiff has previously made 

regarding the statute of limitations, and will review the issue de novo. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 Plaintiff’s status report, ECF No. 30, is construed as an objection to the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice (ECF No. 23), and to any and all 

findings and fact and conclusions of law on which that recommendation is based. 

DATED: September 14, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-01167-TLN-AC Document 31 Filed 09/14/16 Page 2 of 2