Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00208/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00208-8/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

RICHARD JOSEPH CRANE,

Plaintiff,

v.

RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0208 TLN KJN P

ORDER

On September 14, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief. On September 22, 

2015, the undersigned recommended that plaintiff’s motion be denied. On October 29, 2015, the 

district court adopted the findings and recommendations and denied plaintiff’s motion for 

injunctive relief. 

On November 2, 2015, plaintiff’s request for extension of time to file objections to the 

findings and recommendations was entered on the court’s docket as filed on October 30, 2015. 

However, plaintiff’s request for extension was dated October 20, 2015. “[T[he Houston mailbox 

rule applies to § 1983 complaints filed by pro se prisoners.” Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 

1109 (9th Cir. 2009), citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76 (1988). Thus, under the 

mailbox rule, plaintiff’s request for extension of time was submitted on October 20, 2015. 

However, plaintiff sought an extension of time two days before the filing deadline based on work 

he was preparing for other cases. Plaintiff is advised that he is required to diligently prosecute 

Case 2:15-cv-00208-TLN-CSK Document 33 Filed 11/10/15 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

this case despite ongoing deadlines in other cases. In an abundance of caution, plaintiff is granted 

thirty days in which to file objections to the September 22, 2015 findings and recommendations, 

at which time the district court will reconsider the October 29, 2015 order. No further extensions 

of time will be granted. If no objections are timely filed, the October 29, 2015 order will stand.

On November 4, 2015, plaintiff filed a duplicate motion for protective order. In his 

request for extension of time, plaintiff expressed concern that his earlier motion may have been 

destroyed by prison staff, and was unsure whether the court received the motion. However, 

plaintiff’s motion was received on October 13, 2015, and was denied on October 20, 2015. 

Plaintiff is cautioned that he should not resubmit motions as they congest the case docket and 

usurp limited judicial resources. Plaintiff should allow the court sufficient time to review and 

rule on motions. Plaintiff is cautioned that a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis may suffer 

restricted access to the court where it is determined that he has filed excessive motions in a 

pending action. DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Tripati v. 

Beaman, 878 F2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff’s motion is denied as duplicative of the 

October 13, 2015 motion. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s October 30, 2015 motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 28) is partially 

granted; 

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file objections to 

the September 22, 2015 findings and recommendations; 

3. No further extensions of time to file such objections will be granted; and

4. Plaintiff’s motion for protective order (ECF No. 30) is denied as duplicative of the 

October 13, 2015 motion. 

Dated: November 10, 2015

cran0208.36

Case 2:15-cv-00208-TLN-CSK Document 33 Filed 11/10/15 Page 2 of 2