Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01996/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01996-13/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

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN MUNIR,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1996 MCE EFB P

vs.

J. THOMAS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant Thomas has requested additional time to file objections to the court’s

March 15, 2008, findings and recommendations. For the reasons explained, the court finds that

defendants have not demonstrated good cause.

This action proceeds on the October 13, 2005, first amended complaint. On March 5,

2006, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to all claims

against all defendants, except for one. The remaining claim is that defendant Thomas was

deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs by forcing plaintiff to sleep in an

upper bunk even though he knew plaintiff medically was authorized to be assigned to a lower

bunk. As a result, plaintiff fell from the upper bunk.

////

Case 2:05-cv-01996-MCE-EFB Document 46 Filed 03/20/08 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

2

In support of his current request, defendant Thomas asserts that his objections must

include additional evidence not presented to the magistrate judge. It is important to note that

Thomas does not argue that the evidence he now intends to present is new or was for some

reason unavailable to him when he filed his motion for summary judgment. Instead, he simply

asserts that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) permits a party to submit additional evidence to the district judge,

and he can provide additional evidence if given the time to do so. Defendant Thomas asserts that

he will obtain a declaration from a physician who treated plaintiff, but he does not proffer the

substance of what this doctor would state therein. Neither does he allege that counsel has

contacted that physician or explain why a declaration could not be obtained within the time for

filing objections. Thomas also asserts that counsel has contacted him and Dr. Andreasen about

providing a declaration, but “the attorney will not be able to prepare the declarations and obtain

the declarants’ signatures by the current due date for filing objections.” Def.’s Req. at 3. Again,

there is no explanation of why completed declarations cannot timely be submitted. More

importantly, there is now showing of why this information was not obtained, submitted and

properly briefed during the briefing schedule on this motion. The objections period is not the

time for a party to submit an opening brief on a motion. Thus, defendant Thomas has failed to

demonstrate good cause for obtaining an extension of time.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant Thomas’ March 18, 2008, request for an

extension of time to file and serve objections to the findings and recommendations is denied. 

Insofar as Thomas believes he has evidence sufficient to avoid trial, he may make an appropriate

motion supported by such evidence.

DATED: March 20, 2008.

Case 2:05-cv-01996-MCE-EFB Document 46 Filed 03/20/08 Page 2 of 2