Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01567/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01567-18/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON SAUNDERS,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

MATTHEW L. CATE, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:06-cv-01567-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 71.)

Jason Saunders (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On October 8, 2013, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s Third Amended 

Complaint (“TAC”). The Magistrate Judge found that excessive force claims against several 

defendants were cognizable, but that other claims were not. See Doc. No. 56. The Magistrate 

Judge ordered Plaintiff to either file a Fourth Amended Complaint or inform the Court of his 

willingness to proceed on those claims that were found to be cognizable within 30 days. See

id. Any amended complaint was to be limited to no more than 25 pages. See id. 

Plaintiff has indicated that he wishes to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, and he has

been granted numerous extensions of time to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. On December 

Case 1:06-cv-01567-AWI-GSA Document 75 Filed 06/23/15 Page 1 of 4
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

3, 2013, Plaintiff was granted a 45 day extension due lack of sufficient law library access and a 

need to obtain administrative records. See Doc. Nos. 57, 58. On February 6, 2014, Plaintiff

was granted a 60 day extension due complications from the affliction of valley fever and lack 

of adequate treatment, as well as limited law library access. See Doc. Nos. 59, 60. On April 

24, 2014, the Plaintiff was granted a 45 day extension due to continued complications from 

valley fever and lack of access to legal materials. See Doc. Nos. 61, 62. On August 8, 2014, 

and following objections from Plaintiff, the Magistrate Judge vacated a findings and 

recommendation that had recommended dismissing the case due to the failure to obey a court 

order. See Doc. Nos. 63, 66. The Magistrate Judge also granted Plaintiff an additional 30 days 

in which to comply with the October 8 screening order. See Doc. No. 66. On September 18, 

2014, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff an additional 30 days in which to file an amended 

complaint. See Doc. No. 68. Plaintiff had requested additional time because he had been 

released from prison and his medical and psychiatric problems had not stabilized until recently

because he was able to secure medications, and he needed time to obtain the order and 

complaint so that he could amend (a process which he represented had begun). See Doc. No. 

67. Plaintiff stated that this would be his final extension. See id. On October 30, 2014, the 

Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff an additional 30 days in which to file an amended complaint. 

See Doc. No. 68. Plaintiff had sought a 45 day extension for the same reasons as he had 

articulated in his previous request for additional time. See Doc. Nos. 67, 69. Like his previous 

motion for an extension, he assured the Court that this would be the last request for an 

extension. See id. In fact, Plaintiff’s October 24, 2014 motion for an extension of time is 

identical to his September 10, 2014 motion, except that he asked for 45 days instead of 30 days 

in the last paragraph of the October motion. Cf. Doc. No. 67 with Doc. No. 69. The Magistrate 

Judge granted Plaintiff an additional 30 days in which to file an amended complaint. See Doc. 

No. 70. Plaintiff did not file a Fourth Amended Complaint in the time allotted. 

On December 12, 2014, a Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”) was entered, 

recommending that this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order. 

(Doc. 71.) 

Case 1:06-cv-01567-AWI-GSA Document 75 Filed 06/23/15 Page 2 of 4
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

27

28

On December 15, 2014, Plaintiff requested yet another extension of time. See Doc. No. 

72. That request is very short, and merely asks for an extension based on the same 

circumstances that he had previously described in his October 2014 motion. See id.

On December 19, 2014, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s motion for an extension 

of time as unsupported and contrary to his prior representations that no further extensions of 

time would be requested. See Doc. No. 73. 

On January 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the F&R. See Doc. No. 74.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. 

To the extent that Plaintiff complains about the failure to grant another extension of 

time, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determination that insufficient cause has

been demonstrated. Plaintiff has had more than a year to respond to the Magistrate Judge’s 

analysis of the TAC, and has yet to do so. That is an extraordinary amount of time. Plaintiff 

did not indicate that he has prepared a Fourth Amended Complaint, but instead requests an 

additional 45 days in which to file a Fourth Amended Complaint because of psychiatric issues 

and having developed valley fever. The valley fever issues are not new. Plaintiff has informed 

the Court of these issues on several occasions, and on the last two occasions the Court was 

assured by Plaintiff that no further requests for time would be made. Despite the various 

obstacles encountered by Plaintiff, including valley fever complications, relocating out of 

prison, and limited access to a prison law library, Plaintiff has been able to submit four 

complaints (an initial complaint and three amended complaints), make numerous requests for 

extensions of time, and make objections to findings and recommendations. Moreover, Plaintiff 

has had well over a year to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, which is an extraordinary 

amount of time. Plaintiff’s objections and most recent request for an extension of time are 

unsworn and provide little detail. Reliance on an unsworn and vague allegation of a severe 

medical issue is insufficient given the history of this case and the significant time that has 

elapsed. The Court will not grant further time to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. 

Case 1:06-cv-01567-AWI-GSA Document 75 Filed 06/23/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

However, while the Court will not grant additional time to file a Fourth Amended 

Complaint, the Court respectfully declines to dismiss the case at this time. The TAC was found 

to state cognizable claims against certain defendants for excessive force. Because Plaintiff has 

alleged cognizable claims in the TAC, the Court will require Plaintiff to state his willingness to 

proceed on those claims. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed, then the case will proceed on the 

cognizable excessive force claims only. If Plaintiff does not wish to proceed, then the TAC 

will be dismissed and this case will close. If Plaintiff does not timely state whether he wishes 

to proceed with the cognizable excessive force claims in the TAC, the Court will close this case 

for failure to prosecute (as recommended by the F&R) without further notice.

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Court respectfully DECLINES to adopt the F&R issued on December 12, 

2014 (Doc. No. 71);

2. Plaintiff shall inform the Court whether he wishes to proceed on the claims 

found cognizable in the Third Amended Complaint on or by July 6, 2015;1and 

3. The failure of Plaintiff to timely respond to this order will result in the dismissal 

of this case without further notice for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 Because Plaintiff is no longer a prisoner, he does not have the benefit of the “mail box rule.” A notice from 

Plaintiff that is post-marked on or before July 6, 2015 will not be sufficient. Plaintiff’s notice must be in the 

physical possession of the Clerk’s office on or by July 6, 2015. 

Case 1:06-cv-01567-AWI-GSA Document 75 Filed 06/23/15 Page 4 of 4