Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01687/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01687-8/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

MICHAEL HICKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BEHROZ HAMKAR et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1687 KJM CKD P (TEMP)

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On January 6, 2016, this court granted in part plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to 

file objections to this court’s findings and recommendations filed December 3, 2015, and to file 

an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss filed on December 10, 2015. Plaintiff has filed 

two motions for reconsideration asking for more time because he recently transferred to Salinas 

Valley State Prison, has not yet received his property, and is purportedly unable to do anything 

with respect to this case.

The court will deny plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration. As an initial matter, plaintiff 

still has almost a month to comply with the court’s January 6, 2016, order granting him additional 

time to file his objections and opposition. Moreover, with respect to filing objections, plaintiff is 

advised that the purpose of filing objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and 

Case 2:13-cv-01687-KJM-DB Document 70 Filed 01/28/16 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

recommendations is merely to identify the portions of the findings and recommendations to which 

objection is made and the basis of the objection. The district judge will conduct a de novo review 

of the findings and recommendations. The purpose of such objections is not to provide the parties 

an opportunity to conduct additional research and present new arguments that were not included 

in the motion heard by the assigned magistrate judge.

Also, with respect to filing an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiff 

appears to address at least some of defendants’ arguments in his second motion for 

reconsideration. For example, plaintiff argues that his complaint does not merely raise negligence 

or medical malpractice claims. He also argues that defendants are not entitled to qualified 

immunity. In any event, plaintiff’s recent filings indicate that he is in fact capable of working on 

this case. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, if the deadline for filing his opposition to 

defendants’ motion to dismiss draws near and plaintiff feels he does not have enough time to 

prepare and serve his opposition, he may file a request for an extension of time to oppose 

defendants’ motion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration 

(Doc. Nos. 67 & 69) are denied.

Dated: January 27, 2016

ec

hick1687.36objs

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-01687-KJM-DB Document 70 Filed 01/28/16 Page 2 of 2