Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01312/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01312-3/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

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

NORMAN DANIELS, III, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

STU SHERMAN,

 Defendant.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01312-EPG-PC

 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

(ECF No. 12)

Plaintiff Norman Daniels, III, has filed a request for an extension of time to file a 

response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 9), as well as a request for clarification 

of the Order to Show Cause. The Order to Show Cause was issued on October 17, 2016 and 

this is Plaintiff’s second request for an extension of time. As with the previous request for an 

extension of time, Plaintiff incorrectly filed his motion in a different case that Plaintiff is 

pursuing simultaneously, case no. 1:16-cv-01313-EPG-PC (the “1313 case”). Plaintiff’s motion 

expresses confusion at the procedural posture of the two cases and requests an additional 90 

days to respond to the Order to Show Cause.

As to Plaintiff’s request for clarification, Plaintiff is currently pursuing two separate 

cases that appear to arise out of the same set of facts. The present case (the “1312 case”) is the 

first of those cases and the 1313 case is the second of those cases. The 1313 case was originally 

assigned to Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. As explained in the Order to Show Cause, 

Case 1:16-cv-01312-LJO-EPG Document 13 Filed 12/20/16 Page 1 of 3
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

the 1312 case appears to be substantially identical to a complaint that was filed by Plaintiff in 

2012, case no. 1:12-cv-00545-LJO-GSA (the “545 case”). The 545 case was dismissed in 2014. 

Shortly after the Order to Show cause was issued in the 1312, the 1313 case was related to the 

present case—in other words, the 1313 case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Erica P. 

Grosjean. Both the 1312 case and the 1313 case are still active cases and neither has been 

subsumed by the other. Both cases are currently in the screening process and the Court must 

determine whether they should be allowed to proceed.1

The Order to Show Cause requires Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be 

dismissed based on the fact that the 545 case was dismissed. Generally, a “final judgment on 

the merits bars further claims by parties or their privies based on the same cause of action.” 

Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2005).2Final judgment 

was entered in the 545 case. Thus, Plaintiff must explain why the 1312 case should not be 

barred from proceeding. As explained in the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff should do this by 

filing a written response with the Court explaining why this doctrine does not apply. If Plaintiff 

determines that his case(s) should not proceed based on res judicata, he may also file a notice 

of voluntary dismissal of his case.

The Court is unwilling to grant the entire requested 90 day extension because Plaintiff 

has already received over two months of time to consider his response to the Order to Show 

Cause. 

\\\

\\\

 

1 A separate order to show cause has been issued in the 1313 case requiring the Plaintiff to show cause why the 

1313 case should not be dismissed based on res judicata. Plaintiff must thus respond to two orders to show 

cause—one in this case and one in the 1313 case. It is unclear to the Court why Plaintiff is pursuing these cases in 

tandem.

2

“The elements necessary to establish res judicata are: ‘(1) an identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on the 

merits, and (3) privity between parties.’” Headwaters Inc., 399 F.3d at 1052, quoting Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, 

Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003).

Case 1:16-cv-01312-LJO-EPG Document 13 Filed 12/20/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Nevertheless, the Court will GRANT IN PART Plaintiff’s request for an extension of 

time to respond. Plaintiff shall file a response to the Order to Show Cause no later than 

February 17, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01312-LJO-EPG Document 13 Filed 12/20/16 Page 3 of 3