Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00026/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00026-13/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS B. CASTANEDA,,

Plaintiff,

 v.

D. FOSTON, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12-cv-00026-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF No. 40)

Plaintiff Jesus B. Castaneda (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 29, 2012, the Court appointed 

Yan E. Shrayberman as counsel for Plaintiff for the limited purpose of drafting and filing an 

amended complaint. Pursuant to that order, Yan E. Shrayberman’s appointment would terminate 

when Plaintiff’s amended complaint was filed. (ECF No. 15.)

Plaintiff’s counsel filed the first amended complaint on November 4, 2012. (ECF No. 

28.) On September 6, 2013, the Court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 

and found that it stated a cognizable claim against Defendants Reeves, John Doe, Trimble and 

Martinez for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment and against 

Defendants Quezada, Lopez and Martinez for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. 

Case 1:12-cv-00026-AWI-BAM Document 44 Filed 02/10/14 Page 1 of 3
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

The Court issued findings and recommendations that all other claims and defendants be 

dismissed. (ECF No. 29.) On September 30, 2013, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit service 

documents and USM-285 forms to initiate service for Defendants Reeves, Trimble, Martinez, 

Lopez and Quezada within thirty days. (ECF No. 30.) 

Both the findings and recommendations and the order to submit service documents were 

served on Plaintiff’s limited-appointment counsel. (ECF No. 29, 30, 31.) However, by operation 

of the Court’s May 29, 2012 order, counsel’s appointment was terminated upon the filing of the 

first amended complaint on November 4, 2012. As a result, on October 23, 2013, the Court 

issued an order confirming termination of counsel and substituting Plaintiff in pro per. The 

Court directed former counsel to provide Plaintiff’s last known address and a statement notifying 

the Court if counsel sent Plaintiff the September 6, 2013 findings and recommendations and the 

September 9, 2013 order directing submission of service documents. (ECF No. 32.)

On October 28, 2013, Plaintiff’s former counsel submitted notice of Plaintiff’s last 

known address and indicated that Plaintiff would be advised of the court’s findings and orders by 

letter that same day. (ECF No. 33.)

On November 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to submit service 

documents in compliance with the Court’s September 9, 2013 order. Plaintiff indicated that he 

received a copy of the Court’s findings and recommendations on November 1, 2013. (ECF No. 

34, p. 4.) Plaintiff requested additional time to comply with the Court’s September 9, 2013 order 

regarding submission of service documents. Plaintiff did not request an extension of time to file 

objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 34, pp. 5-6.)

On November 20, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to 

submit service documents. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff submitted the relevant service documents on 

December 19, 2013. (ECF No. 37.) On December 20, 2013, the Court directed the United States 

Marshal to serve the amended complaint on Defendants Lopez, Martinez, Quezada, Reeves, and 

R. H. Trimble. (ECF No. 38.)

On January 3, 2013, the District Court adopted the findings and recommendations issued 

on September 6, 2013 regarding dismissal of certain claims and defendants. (ECF No. 39.)

Case 1:12-cv-00026-AWI-BAM Document 44 Filed 02/10/14 Page 2 of 3
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 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting the opportunity to 

provide objections to the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff reports that he is unsure if 

former counsel filed any objections, but he believes that they should have been filed. Plaintiff 

claims that he was unable to submit the instant request earlier because he was fulfilling the 

Court’s order regarding service documents. (ECF No. 40.)

The Court does not find good cause to extend the time to file objections to the findings 

and recommendations. According to Plaintiff’s own submissions, he received a copy of the 

Court’s findings and recommendations on November 1, 2013. Plaintiff does not indicate why he 

was unable to request additional time to file objections on November 18, 2013, at the same time

that he requested an extension to comply with the Court’s order regarding service documents. 

Plaintiff also does not explain the delay in requesting an extension of time to submit objections 

after submission of the service documents on December 19, 2013. Further, Plaintiff does not 

identify the substance of his objections. 

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to file objections to the findings and 

recommendations is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00026-AWI-BAM Document 44 Filed 02/10/14 Page 3 of 3