United States District Court, E.D. California
GORDON C. REID, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
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)
MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.
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 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.
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 ...