Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01608/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01608-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES V. CAICO, No. CIV-S-02-1608 MCE/GGH P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

D.L. RUNNELS, ET AL., 

Defendants.

__________________________/

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed

this civil rights action seeking relief under 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 General Order No.

262.

On February 15, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings

and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and

which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days.

///

Case 2:02-cv-01608-MCE -GGH Document 89 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 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

2

The magistrate judge recommended that defendants’ December 13,

2004, motion to dismiss be granted. Plaintiff did not oppose

this motion. On March 7, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for a

thirty day extension of time to file his objections. The grounds

for this request are that plaintiff has a brief due in the Ninth

Circuit which he is working on.

Plaintiff has filed and been granted numerous extensions of

time in this action. On August 26, 2002, the court granted

plaintiff thirty days to file a complaint. On October 7, 2002,

the court granted plaintiff’s September 26, 2002, request for

extension of time to file the complaint. On March 18, 2003, the

court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. On April 29,

2003, the court granted plaintiff’s April 22, 2003, request for

extension of time to file the amended complaint. On June 10,

2003, the court granted plaintiff’s May 30, 2003, second request

for extension of time to file the amended complaint. 

On March 5, 2004, the court granted plaintiff’s March 1,

2004, request for extension of time to oppose defendants’ motion

to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. When

plaintiff failed to file his opposition, on May 7, 2004, the

court recommended that defendants’ motion be granted. On May 7,

2004, plaintiff filed a request for extension of time to oppose

defendants’ motion to dismiss. On May 14, 2004, the court

vacated the May 2004, findings and recommendations and ordered

plaintiff’s opposition due within thirty days. 

///

Case 2:02-cv-01608-MCE -GGH Document 89 Filed 12/01/05 Page 2 of 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

3

When plaintiff again failed to file an opposition, on June 30,

2004, the court again recommended that defendants’ motion be

granted. On July 29, 2004, plaintiff filed objections to the

findings and recommendations. On August 5, 2004, the court

vacated the June 30, 2004, findings and recommendations and

granted plaintiff one final opportunity to file an opposition to

defendants’ motion.

As outlined above, the resolution of this action has been

delayed numerous times as a result of plaintiff’s inability to

timely comply with orders. In light of this history, the court

is unwilling to again delay this action on the grounds set forth

in plaintiff’s pending request for extension of time. That

plaintiff has a brief due in the Ninth Circuit is not good cause

on which to grant his request for extension of time.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:02-cv-01608-MCE -GGH Document 89 Filed 12/01/05 Page 3 of 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

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s March 7, 2005, request for an extension of

time to file objections is denied;

2. The findings and recommendations filed February 15,

2005, are adopted in full; and

3. The December 13, 2004, motion to dismiss filed by

defendants Mericle and King is granted.

DATED: November 30, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-01608-MCE -GGH Document 89 Filed 12/01/05 Page 4 of 4