Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01737/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01737-3/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

DANIEL QUINTERO, 

Plaintiff,

v.

T. MIKE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01737-KES-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE 

(ECF No. 18)

Plaintiff Daniel Quintero is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his previous complaints, Plaintiff 

alleges that a correctional officer refused to transfer his cell, directed a search of his cell that 

destroyed religious items, and placed him in another cell with a dangerous inmate.

Currently pending are Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss this Action without 

Prejudice for Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Comply with Court’s Orders. (ECF No. 17).

Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations and the time to do so 

has passed.

On January 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Request for Continuance, asking for a continuance 

of the case until the Fresno Superior Court rules on Plaintiff’s request, made in connection with 

a petition for habeas corpus, for a copy of a prison rule regarding leaving inmates without 

power when the breaker is triggered and maintenance logs. (ECF No. 18).

Case 1:23-cv-01737-KES-EPG Document 19 Filed 01/17/25 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

For reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on August 14, 2023. (ECF No. 1).

Plaintiff generally alleged that a correctional officer at Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP) refused 

to transfer his cell and directed a cell search that took and/or destroyed some of his property. On 

May 15, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint, found that Plaintiff failed to state any 

cognizable claims, and granted Plaintiff leave to file amended complaint. (ECF No. 10).

Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on May 28, 2024. (ECF No. 11).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint generally alleged that a correctional officer refused to transfer his 

cell, directed a search of his cell that destroyed religious items, and placed him in another cell with 

a dangerous inmate. The Court again screened Plaintiff’s complaint, again found it failed to state 

any cognizable claims, and granted Plaintiff leave to file amended complaint. (ECF No. 12).

On July 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document that is labelled “Second Amended 

Complaint” (SAC). (ECF No. 14). However, the document appeared to be a response to the 

Court’s screening order rather than an amended complaint. 

On September 10, 2024, the Court issued an order giving Plaintiff one final opportunity 

to file an amended complaint within 30 days. (ECF No. 15). 

After the deadline to respond to the Court’s order had passed, and Plaintiff had not filed 

a third amended complaint or a statement with the Court that he wishes to proceed on his 

second amended complaint, or had otherwise communicated with the Court, on October 22, 

2024, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to dismiss this action for failure to 

comply with court orders and to prosecute. (ECF No. 17). The Court served the Findings and 

Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were due within 30 days.

(Id. at 4–5.) Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations and the 

time to do has passed.

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 1:23-cv-01737-KES-EPG Document 19 Filed 01/17/25 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 January 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Request for Continuance,” 

bearing three different case numbers.1(ECF No. 18). Plaintiff states that he has filed a habeas 

corpus petition in Fresno Superior Court, in which he seeks “a copy of the policy and other 

building maintenance logs in order to prevail with the initial screening.” (Id. at 1). Plaintiff 

requests a continuance until he receives the Superior Court’s response. (Id.)

II. ANALYSIS

As a threshold matter, it is not clear what deadline Plaintiff seeks to continue or extend 

with his request. Objections to Findings and Recommendations to dismiss this case for failure 

to prosecute and comply with Court’s orders (ECF No. 17), issued on October 22, 2024, were 

due within 30 days of that order, or by no later than November 22, 2024. There are no other 

currently pending deadlines in this action.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to stay this case entirely so that he may file a further 

amended complaint with the benefit of additional evidence, Plaintiff has failed to show good 

cause for such a stay. Plaintiff states that what he seeks to obtain is “a copy of the prison 

specific rule to leave inmates without power when the breaker is triggered for an indeterminate 

time, created by Warden Lemon and enforced by illegal actions by Sgt. Mike and Oxborrow.” 

(ECF No. 18 at 1). However, such evidence is not relevant to any of the claims alleged in his 

complaint. Plaintiff first claim is for a failure to protect Plaintiff from imminent danger, based 

on Sgt. Mike keeping Plaintiff in a cell with inmate Hernandez and then placing him in a cell 

with inmate Delgadillo. (ECF No. 12 at 7). Plaintiff also brings claims based on the destruction 

of his property and religious items during a cell search, which he believes was directed by 

Defendant Mike. Plaintiff specifically alleges that “Staff” destroyed his Quran and prayer mat 

while conducting a cell search. (ECF No. 12 at 9, 11). A prison policy related to breakers and 

loss of power is not relevant to any of Plaintiff’s claims in this case.

//

1 Plaintiff’s request was denied by the Court as moot in the other two cases listed in the caption. 

See ECF No. 30, Quintero v. Lemon, et al., 1:23-cv-01233-KES-SAB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2025); ECF No. 

12, Quintero v. Lemon, 1:23-cv-01196-BAM (E.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2025).

Case 1:23-cv-01737-KES-EPG Document 19 Filed 01/17/25 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

Moreover, the current recommendation for dismissal would be without prejudice, such 

that Plaintiff could refile his complaint at a later time with the benefit of additional information 

if he chooses, subject to any applicable statute of limitations.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for continuance (ECF No. 18), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2025 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01737-KES-EPG Document 19 Filed 01/17/25 Page 4 of 4