Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sessing v. Sherman

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 3, 2017

NATHAN SESSING, Plaintiff,
v.
STU SHERMAN, et al., Defendant.

          ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S POST-TERMINATION MOTIONS (ECF Nos. 118, 120, 123, 127, & 128) CLERK TO TERMINATE ALL PENDING MOTIONS

          Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. Procedural History

         Plaintiff is a prisoner who proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the violation of his First Amendment free exercise rights. His claim arose from the promulgation of a policy which prohibited the construction of new worship grounds at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“CSATF”), which prevented Plaintiff from exercising his outdoor, fire-centric Odinist religion. (ECF No. 34)

         On December 20, 2016, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued findings and recommendations (“F&R”) to dismiss Plaintiff's case without leave to amend for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 110.) The dismissal was based on the fact that the policy Plaintiff challenged had since been discontinued, as well as the fact that Plaintiff had since been transferred from the offending institution. (Id.) As Plaintiff sought only injunctive relief, subsequent events had rendered Plaintiff's claims moot. (Id.) The parties were granted fourteen days to file their objections. On January 9, 2017, having received no objections, the undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations in full and dismissed the case. (ECF No. 116.) Judgement was entered that same day. (ECF No. 117.)

         Plaintiff then submitted numerous post-termination motions and filings to the District Court:

1) On January 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's F&R (ECF No. 118), and on February 13, 2017, filed his objections (ECF No. 122);
2) On February 6, 2017, he filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment (ECF No. 120); on February 16, 2017, Defendants filed an opposition to the same;
3) On February 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint (ECF No. 123), on February 22, 2017, he lodged a supplemental complaint (ECF No. 126), and also on February 22, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to strike the same (ECF No. 125);
4) On February 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for Court action (ECF No. 127); and
5) On March 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for a thirty day extension of time to file a reply to Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's motion to alter the judgment (ECF No. 128).

         II. Plaintiff's Late Filed Objections

         Plaintiff states that he did not receive the Magistrate Judge's F&R until fourteen days after they were served, and was thus unable to timely file his objections. (ECF No. 118.) In the interest of fairness, the Court will grant Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file objections. Having reviewed Plaintiff's objections, the Court finds them to lack merit. Indeed, his objections are not actually objections, but rather new arguments stating why Plaintiff should be permitted to file a supplemental complaint to add new facts occurring after the case was filed. For the reasons stated below in subsection IV, this request will be denied.

         III. Motion to Alter or Amend Judgement

         Plaintiff moves to amend the Court's judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) on the grounds that he did not have an opportunity to object to the Magistrate ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.