Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00583/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00583-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KRZYSZTOF F. WOLINSKI, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. LEWIS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:17-cv-0583 MCE AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff has filed a motion for an extension of time to file objections to the August 21, 

2023, findings and recommendations. ECF No. 76. In the motion, plaintiff also asks the court to 

order California Health Care Facility Warden Gena Jones or Librarian S. Koubong to provide 

reasonable accommodations and ten hours per week of access to “ADA, Computer with 

Microsoft Word Processor.” Id. at 1-2. For the reasons stated below, both requests will be 

denied. 

 In support of plaintiff’s requests, he appears to state that he has a disability as defined 

under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title II, Section 504. ECF No. 76 at 2. Plaintiff 

contends that he accordingly needs more time to draft court papers and access the prison’s ADA 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:17-cv-00583-DC-AC Document 77 Filed 09/11/23 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 

computer in the prison law library. Plaintiff seeks additional time to file his objections and do the 

“required research” so he can “cure his deficiencies” in the complaint.1 Id. at 2. 

 In the pending findings and recommendations, the court found that both of plaintiff’s 

claims are suitable to proceed against six defendants. ECF No. 75 at 2-4. The court also found 

that those claims do not lie against eight additional named defendants, and it has been 

recommended that those individuals be dismissed. Id. at 5-6. Finally, the court found that 

because plaintiff had been given two opportunities to amend and had been given clear instruction 

on how to do so each time, providing plaintiff with a third opportunity to amend the complaint 

was futile and would not serve the interests of justice. Id. at 5. 

 The only possible objections that plaintiff could make are to the recommendation that 

certain defendants be dismissed and to the finding that a third opportunity to amend would be 

pointless. Drafting objections to these findings and recommendations does not require legal 

research. This case has been on the court’s docket since 2017 when defendants removed it from 

state court. ECF Nos. 1, 2 (March 2017 docketing of initial complaint, removal notice). Six and 

a half years, a lengthy challenge to removal,2 two amended complaints,3 and one grant of 

sanctions against plaintiff later,4 two viable claims have been culled from plaintiff’s original 230-

plus page complaint.5 Enough is enough. Additional delay without good cause is inappropriate 

here. 

/// 

1

 Plaintiff also alleges several rules violation reports have been filed against him because he filed 

a grievance related to this matter. See ECF No. 76 at 2. Plaintiff has no constitutional right to be 

free from having false rules violation reports filed against him. Freeman v. Rideout, 808 F.2d 

949, 951 (2d Cir. 1986). Furthermore, any marginally alleged violation of First Amendment right 

made in the instant motion is pure conjecture and is wholly unsupported. See generally ECF No. 

76. In any event, the allegations have nothing to do with whether a grant of an extension of time 

to file objections should be granted. Accordingly, the court does not consider these claims in this 

order. 

2

 See ECF Nos. 7, 14, 28 (plaintiff’s motion to remand; denial of same). 

3

 See ECF Nos. 24, 69 (plaintiff’s first and second amended complaints). 

4

 See ECF Nos. 29, 36, 40 (defendants’ sanctions request; grant of same). Plaintiff was ordered 

to pay $1,000.00 to defendants for not following court rules; intentionally filing altered 

paperwork, and filing false allegations about a defendant and his counsel. ECF Nos. 36 at 5-8; 40. 

5

 See ECF No. 2 (original 239-page complaint). 

Case 2:17-cv-00583-DC-AC Document 77 Filed 09/11/23 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 

Plaintiff has been provided an opportunity to object to the portions of the findings and 

recommendations with which he disagrees, and because legal research is not necessary to identify 

those matters and invoke the district judge’s plenary review, the requested extension of time is 

not supported by good cause. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for an additional thirty days to file 

objections will be denied. His request that prison staff at CHCF be ordered to give him ten hours 

a week in the prison law library in order do to research to file such objections will also be denied 

as moot. Because the period for plaintiff to file objections has passed, the findings and 

recommendations will immediately be referred to the District Judge currently assigned to this 

matter. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file objections to the findings and 

recommendations issued August 21, 2023 (ECF No. 76 at 1-3) is DENIED, and 

 2. Plaintiff’s request that prison personnel at California Health Care Facility be ordered 

to give him ten hours a week of time to do research for his objections to the pending findings and 

recommendations (ECF No. 76 at 1-3) is also DENIED as moot. 

DATED: September 11, 2023. 

Case 2:17-cv-00583-DC-AC Document 77 Filed 09/11/23 Page 3 of 3