Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01546/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01546-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

GARY LEE HENSLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-07-1546 FCD DAD PS

vs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT ORDER

COURT EASTERN DISTRICT

OF CALIFORNIA (KIMBERLY J.

MUELLER AS A U.S. DISTRICT

JUDGE), et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, have filed a motion to amend findings and have

noticed the motion for hearing before the undersigned magistrate judge on March 31, 2008. 

Plaintiffs’ motion is defective in several ways and will not be placed on the court’s calendar for

March 31, 2008, or any other date.

First, the motion has been brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

52(b). This rule is applicable to “actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory

jury” and applies only after judgment has been entered. In such actions, Rule 52(b) permits a

party to move for amendment of findings “no later than 10 days after entry of judgment.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 52(b). This case has not been tried, and no judgment has been entered. To the extent that

Case 2:07-cv-01546-FCD-DAD Document 62 Filed 03/10/08 Page 1 of 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

2

plaintiffs’ motion has been brought pursuant to Rule 52(b), the motion is without merit and must

be denied.

In addition, the motion has not been noticed in compliance with the Local Rules. 

In the order and findings and recommendations filed in this case on February 19, 2008, the

undersigned noted that Local Rule 78-230 governs civil motion calendars and procedure. (Order

& Findings & Recommendations filed Feb. 19, 2008, at 7.) For the benefit of the pro se

plaintiffs, the undersigned explained that “[a] party filing a motion is required to notice the

motion for hearing on an available date on the motion calendar of the assigned District Judge or

designated Magistrate Judge.” (Id. (citing Local Rule 78-230).) The undersigned provided the

telephone number of the Clerk’s Office and the court’s web site. (Id. at 6 n.3.) It appears that the

plaintiffs failed to inquire about available dates on the motion calendar of the designated

magistrate judge, as the date selected by plaintiffs is not such a date.

Plaintiffs’ motion was also defectively noticed because Local Rule 78-230(b)

requires moving parties to file their motion not less than 31 days before the hearing date if the

motion is served by mail. Plaintiffs’ motion includes proof of service by mail and therefore

could not have been heard prior to the next available motion calendar at least 31 days after March

6, 2008, the date on which the motion was filed. Defectively noticed motions “shall be filed, but

not set hearing.” Local Rule 78-230(b). Plaintiffs may not file and serve a new notice of motion

because of the other ways in which the motion is defective.

In the final paragraph of the February 19, 2008 order and findings and

recommendations, information is provided about filing objections. It appears that the pro se

plaintiffs overlooked this information. In the interests of justice, the court will construe the

motion as plaintiffs’ timely objections. Defendants will be granted an opportunity to file any

reply to the objections. Upon the expiration of the time for filing replies, the findings and

recommendations will be submitted to the assigned district judge, along with all timely

objections and replies, for de novo review.

Case 2:07-cv-01546-FCD-DAD Document 62 Filed 03/10/08 Page 2 of 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

3

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ March 6, 2008 motion to amend findings has been defectively

noticed and will not be set for hearing;

2. Plaintiffs’ March 6, 2008 motion to amend findings pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 52(b) is denied;

3. Plaintiff’s motion will be construed as plaintiffs’ objections to the findings and

recommendations filed February 19, 2008; and

4. Defendants’ replies, if any, shall be filed and served within ten calendar days

after this order is filed.

DATED: March 10, 2008.

DAD:kw

Ddad1\orders.prose\hensley1546.mtaf&r.den

Case 2:07-cv-01546-FCD-DAD Document 62 Filed 03/10/08 Page 3 of 3