IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 8, 2013
MARSHALL-EDWARD: MIKELS, ET AL.,
ING BANK, FSB, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, bring this civil action. Pending before the court is plaintiffs' latest filing, a notice of default in dishonor (Doc. 81). It appears from the body of this document, that plaintiffs are attempting to renew their motion to disqualify the undersigned as well as request an extension of time to file objections to the two pending findings and recommendations.
To the extent plaintiffs are attempting to renew their motion to disqualify the undersigned from these proceedings, the undersigned has already denied such a motion and the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of that denial, specifically ordering that no further motions for reconsideration will be considered. Plaintiffs have provided no further reasons to disqualify the undersigned.
Therefore, pursuant to the District Court's prior order, to the extent plaintiffs' latest filing is a renewed motion for disqualification, that motion is denied.
In addition, plaintiffs appear to be requesting additional time to file objections to the undersigned's findings and recommendations. Plaintiffs indicate that they previously notified the court of an address change, but the findings and recommendations were sent to their old address. A review of the docket for this case does not reveal that plaintiffs have ever filed a notice of change of address. Plaintiffs argue the court should have noticed their return address had changed on a prior pleading they filed. However, pursuant to the local rules, plaintiffs are required to specifically notify the Clerk of any change of address. See Local Rule 182(f). Simply expecting the Clerk of the Court to notice a new return address is unreasonable, and insufficient. However, to the extent the court is now aware of the new address, the Clerk will be directed to update the plaintiffs' address. Additionally, as plaintiffs did not receive the findings and recommendations in a timely manner due to the mailing issue, they will be allowed additional time to file their objections. Any further objections*fn1 to the findings and recommendations shall be filed within 14 days of the date of this order. Plaintiffs are again cautioned that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs' motion to disqualify (Doc. 81) is denied;
2. Plaintiffs' request for additional time to file objections to the pending findings and recommendations (Doc. 81) is granted;
3. Objections to the findings and recommendations, filed March 26, 2013, and March 29, 2013, shall be filed within 14 days of the date of this order; and
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the plaintiffs' address as indicated on their latest filing.