UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 15, 2009
JOAQUIN SERRANO REYES, PLAINTIFF,
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO SERVE PLAINTIFF BY MAIL WITH THE AMENDED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 7) ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO AMENDED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OBJECTIONS NO LATER THAN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER (DOCS. 9, 7) INFORMATIONAL ORDER TO PLAINTIFF REGARDING SERVICE DOCUMENTS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil action. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304.
I. Directions to the Clerk of the Court
On April 14, 2009, amended findings and recommendations were filed by the Court; however, it does not appear that the amended findings and recommendations were served by mail on Plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Clerk IS DIRECTED to serve upon Plaintiff by mail, with this order, a copy of the amended findings and recommendations that were filed on April 14, 2009.
II. Plaintiff's Request for an Extension of Time
On May 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed a request for a sixty-day extension of time within which to respond to the Court's amended findings and recommendations. Although Plaintiff is a state prisoner, Plaintiff has not shown that a full period of sixty days is necessary in order for Plaintiff to prepare and file objections to the findings and recommendations. Good cause appearing, Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file objections IS GRANTED IN PART. The objections SHALL BE FILED no later than thirty days after the date of service of this order.
III. Informational Order to Plaintiff concerning Service Documents
Plaintiff asserts that the Clerk mistakenly failed to send to Plaintiff service documents that will be completed, returned to the Court, and used by the Marshal to serve the action on the Defendant United States of America at the appropriate time.
However, it would be premature for the Clerk to send the service documents to Plaintiff at this point. This is because in the Court's amended findings and recommendations, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff stated a claim against one Defendant, the United States of America, and the Magistrate Judge recommended that service should be ordered against that Defendant, and the matter should otherwise be dismissed. The Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations will not take effect until after Plaintiff files his objections (if Plaintiff decides to file any objections), and after the District Judge assigned to the case reviews the findings and recommendations and any objections filed by Plaintiff and thereafter decides to adopt the findings in recommendations in whole or in part. If the District Judge adopts the findings and recommendations, then the District Judge will order that the action can be served on Defendant United States of America; the Clerk will send the service documents to Plaintiff at that time, and upon their return to the Court, the documents will be forwarded by the Clerk to the Marshal for service on the Defendant.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's request that the Clerk be ordered to send him service documents now is disregarded as premature.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.