Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06696/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06696-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS WELCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-6696-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER GRANTING THIRTY DAY

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTION

TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 35)

Plaintiff CurtisWelch (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 22, 2005, the undersigned

issued a Findings and Recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed, without

prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust prior to filing suit. On July 1, 2005, plaintiff filed

his third request for an extension of time to file an objection to the Findings and Recommendations.

Defendant did not file a response. 

Plaintiff requests a ninety day extension of time. Plaintiff’s requests sets forth no grounds

justifying such a lengthy extension of time. In this Circuit, exhaustion must occur prior to filing

suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff received a Director’s

Level decision addressing his inmate appeal after this suit was filed. Thus, the court is having some

difficulty envisioning what good faith argument plaintiff might be intending to base an objection

upon.

///

Case 1:03-cv-06696-AWI -SMS Document 36 Filed 07/26/05 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

The court will grant plaintiff one final thirty day extension of time in the interest of leniency

given plaintiff’s status as a prisoner proceeding pro se. However, no further extensions of time will

be granted absent a showing of exceptional circumstances. A bare assertion of the need for

additional time due to administrative segregation placement is not an exceptional circumstance.

Given that the law governing the issue in the Findings and Recommendations is clear, any further

request for an extension of time must be accompanied by an explanation of why more time is needed

and what plaintiff plans to do with that time. A bare assertion concerning the desire to conduct legal

research will not be sufficient. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (state not required to

enable the inmate to litigate effectively once in court). With the issuance of this order, plaintiff will

have had more than six months to file an objection. Such a period of time is more than ample for

plaintiff to formulate his objection to the Findings and Recommendations. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for an extension of time, filed July 1, 2005, is GRANTED

and plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an objection to the

Findings and Recommendations issued on February 22, 2005.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06696-AWI -SMS Document 36 Filed 07/26/05 Page 2 of 2