Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_96-cv-05720/USCOURTS-caed-1_96-cv-05720-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Complaint for Forfeiture

---

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

1 References to Rules hereinafter are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless

otherwise specified.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODGER L. McAFEE, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

MIKE JOHANNS, Secretary of the )

Department of Agriculture, and JAMES )

R. LITTLE, Administrator of Farm )

Services Agency, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 96-5720 AWI SMS

CV 05-0438 AWI DLB

ORDER DENYING REQUEST

FOR ORDER SHORTENING

TIME, VACATING HEARING

DATE, AND SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Document # 47

Case number 96cv5720 is an action by United States of America, Mike Johanns,

Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and James R. Little, Administrator of the Farm

Services Agency (collectively, “United States”) to foreclose on farm property owned by the

plaintiff in this case, Rodger L. McAfee (“McAfee”) that had been offered as security for farm

loans totaling $2,075,980. Case number 05cv0438 is an independent action by plaintiff McAfee

pursuant to Rule1 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to vacate the judgment in case

number 96cv 5720. On October 6, 2005, this court granted United States’ motion for order of

judicial sale in case 96cv5720. Doc. 163. On the same date, the court granted United States’

motion to dismiss McAfee’s separate action pursuant to Rule 60(b) in case number 05cv0438. 

Case 1:96-cv-05720-AWI -SMS Document 171 Filed 03/02/06 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

27

28 2

Doc. 30. McAfee’s request for reconsideration was denied on November 30, 2005. McAfee

filed notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 5, 2005. The court’s

docket indicates the appeal was processed to the Ninth Circuit on February 7, 2006. In the

instant motion, McAfee has requested an order shortening time for consideration of the motion to

stay pending appeal.

The court takes notice of the protracted history of this case, and finds McAffee’s has

failed on several occasions to timely pursue legal options available to him. In the present

instance, McAfee knew of the order of judicial sale and of the court’s denial of his motion for

reconsideration by the earliest part of December 2005. The court also notes McAfee determined

he would appeal the court’s order denying his Rule 60(b) challenge to the court’s judgment by

December 5, 2005. McAfee had from that time to request stay pending appeal but has instead

chosen to wait until the eleventh hour to request the stay. The court finds any order to shorten

time would prejudice and burden both the court and the opposing party by severely constraining

the time available to give full and fair consideration to the request. The court further finds

McAfee had fair opportunity to make his request for stay pending appeal at a time and in a

manner that would have avoided prejudice to other parties. The court will not reward delay by

issuing orders that could have the effect of compromising the deliberative process.

THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, McAfee’s request for an order

shortening time is hereby DENIED. Any hearing dates currently scheduled for oral argument on

McAfee’s motion for stay pending appeal are hereby VACATED. The Following schedule for

further briefing is ordered:

1. United States shall file and serve any opposition to the motion for stay pending appeal not

later than 4:00 p.m. Friday, March 10, 2006. In the opposition, if any, United States shall

specify the amount of any supersedeas bond applicable in this case pursuant to Rule 62(c)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Case 1:96-cv-05720-AWI -SMS Document 171 Filed 03/02/06 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

27

28 3

2. McAfee may file and serve any reply not later than 4:00 p.m. Friday, March 17, 2006. In

the alternative or in addition, McAfee may post a supersedeas bond the amount specified

by United States. If a supersedeas bond is posted, a stay pending appeal will be granted

as of the date of posting of the bond. 

3. As of March 17, 2006, the court shall take the matter under submission. Pursuant to

Local Rule 78-230, the court finds at this time that oral argument is not necessary in this

case and no party shall appear for oral argument. Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h), the

court may later schedule oral argument should it determine such oral argument

appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

h2ehf UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:96-cv-05720-AWI -SMS Document 171 Filed 03/02/06 Page 3 of 3