UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 10, 2008
O. PAUL SCHLENVOGT, PLAINTIFF,
SCOTT MARSHALL, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's Order of March 31, 2008.*fn1 Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in denying his second request for an extension to file objections to Findings and Recommendations.
The Court first issued Findings and Recommendations on February 29, 2008 granting Defendants' Amended Motion to Dismiss. Thereafter, Plaintiff had ten days to file his objections, but failed to do so. On March 11, 2008, Plaintiff filed a request for a fifteen-day extension of time to file his objections. The reasons Plaintiff gave for this request were computer malfunctions and that he was unable to put his full attention to the objections.
On March 14, 2008, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order vacating the February 29 Findings and Recommendations and entering new Findings and Recommendations again granting the Amended Motion to Dismiss. In effect, this Order granted Plaintiff his requested extension to file his objections. Plaintiff did not file his objections at that time. Instead, on March 19, Plaintiff again sought an extension of time to file his objections to the Findings and Recommendations. The reason Plaintiff gave for his requested extension was that his computer was continuing to malfunction.
On March 31, 2008, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff's request finding that his "computer malfunction" was not a sufficient reason to grant an extension because the objections could be handwritten if necessary. Also on March 31, 2008, this Court entered an Order adopting the Findings and Recommendations and dismissing this action with prejudice.
Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the March 31, 2008 Magistrate Judge's Order denying his request for an extension of time to file his objections. On April 10, 2008, in conjunction with this Motion, Plaintiff filed his objections to the Findings and Recommendations.
Pursuant to the Eastern District's Local Rule 72-303(f), the standard that the assigned Judge shall use in reviewing a Magistrate Judge's ruling is the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
Plaintiff puts forth one argument in support of his argument to reconsider the Magistrate Judge's Order denying his extension of time - that Plaintiff is a pro se litigant and therefore the Court is required to treat him more leniently than a litigant represented by counsel.*fn2
Although pleading requirements are, in some instances, relaxed for pro se litigants, the rule of leniency does not necessarily apply to filing deadlines.
See Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1086-87 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding deadline for filing demand for jury trial not relaxed for pro se plaintiff). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge's March 31, 2008 Order denying Plaintiff's request for an extension of time was neither "clearly erroneous" nor was it "contrary to law." As such, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge's Order of March 31, 2008 is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.