Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01163/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01163-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GORDON C. REID ,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01163-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

OBJECTIONS (ECF No. 15);

(2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 

IN PART MOTION FOR HEARING AND 

ADJUDICATION ON ALL OUTSTANDING 

MOTIONS AND OBJECTIONS (ECF No. 

17);

(3) GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 

18); AND 

(4) DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME 

FOR FILING NOTICE OF APPEAL (ECF 

No. 19)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights and tort action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 

Case 1:14-cv-01163-CDB Document 24 Filed 04/27/15 Page 1 of 4
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

U.S. 388 (1971) and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680.

On November 24, 2014, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it 

for failure to state a claim, but gave leave to amend. (ECF No. 13.) Thereafter, Plaintiff 

filed several motions that are before the Court for ruling.

On December 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file an 

amended complaint. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff also filed a motion for extension of time to file 

objections. (ECF No. 15.) Thereafter, on February 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the 

Court’s screening order, seeking reconsideration by a District Judge. (ECF No. 16.) 

On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for “Hearing and Adjudication on All 

Outstanding Motions and Objections.” (ECF No. 17.) He then moved to withdraw his 

motion for extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 18.) He also moved 

for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. (ECF No. 19.)

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on March 23, 2015. (ECF No. 20.) On April 13, 

2015, his appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 23.)

II. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS

Plaintiff seeks an extension of time on the ground that he did not receive the 

Court’s screening order until December 1, 2014, because he was in the Special Housing 

Unit. He wishes to object to numerous aspects of the screening order.

Good cause having been presented, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for 

extension of time nunc pro tunc. Plaintiff’s February 2, 2015 objections will be deemed 

timely.

III. MOTION FOR HEARING AND ADJUDICATION

Plaintiff complains that his motions have been pending for several months.

The Fresno Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

California carries one of the busiest dockets in the country. The Court is faced with 

cases similar to Plaintiff’s almost daily. There is a backlog of cases and resulting delay in 

addressing motions.

Case 1:14-cv-01163-CDB Document 24 Filed 04/27/15 Page 2 of 4
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

To the extent Plaintiff’s motions are addressed herein, his motion for adjudication 

will be granted. In all other respects, the motion will be denied. The District Judge will 

address Plaintiff’s objections to the screening order in due course.

IV. MOTION TO WITHDRAW MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Plaintiff seeks to withdraw his motion for extension of time to file an amended 

complaint. (ECF No. 14.) The request will be granted.

V. MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL

Plaintiff states that he submitted a notice of appeal on February 9, 2015, but it 

was not filed. He therefore seeks an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed because the challenged order (the Court’s 

screening order) was not final or appealable. (ECF No. 23.) Because the appeal was not 

authorized, there was no deadline for Plaintiff to appeal. His motion for extension of time 

is moot and will be denied.

VI. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file objections (ECF No. 15) is 

GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff’s time to file objections is extended nunc pro tunc to February 2, 

2015;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for hearing and adjudication on all outstanding motions 

and objections (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN 

PART;

4. Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw motion for extension of time to file amended 

complaint (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED;

5. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file an amended complaint (ECF 

No. 14) is WITHDRAWN; and

6. Plaintiff’s motion to extend time for filing a notice of appeal (ECF No. 19) is 

Case 1:14-cv-01163-CDB Document 24 Filed 04/27/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01163-CDB Document 24 Filed 04/27/15 Page 4 of 4