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.

Martinez v. Rojas

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 2, 2019

ANTONIO MARTINEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
F. ROJAS, et al., Defendants.

         ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OBJECTIONS LATE FOR GOOD CAUSE (DOC. NOS. 37, 39, 40) ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. NOS. 33, 38) ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR A RULE 45 SUBPOENA (DOC. NO. 38)

          BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Antonio Martinez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         Currently before the Court are Plaintiff's motion for leave to file objections late for good cause, filed on February 19, 2019, and the Court's January 23, 2019 Findings and Recommendations to dismiss Defendant Officer John Doe # 3 for failure to serve with process. (Doc. Nos. 33, 37.)

         I. Relevant Background

         This action currently proceeds against Registered Nurse F. Rojas and Officer Doe # 3 for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 24.) Officer Doe # 3 is described in Plaintiff's second amended complaint as a receiving and release officer employed at Pleasant Valley State Prison on May 16, 2016. (Doc. No. 22, at 3, 9.)

         In the Court's June 15, 2018 Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff was advised that he may be able to identify Officer Doe # 3 from documents located in his central file, which may be available upon request from prison officials, without court intervention. (Doc. No. 24, at 6.) On October 24, 2018, the Court issued an order further advising Plaintiff on his duty to identify Officer Doe # 3 for service of process and requiring Plaintiff to file, within forty-five (45) days, either a motion for leave to amend his second amended complaint to substitute the identify of Officer Doe # 3 in this action or a motion for a Rule 45 subpoena to obtain the information necessary to identify Officer Doe # 3. (Doc. No. 29.) That deadline passed, and Plaintiff did not comply with the Court's order or otherwise communicate with the Court.

         Consequently, on December 27, 2018, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to, within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the order, either file a motion for leave to amend his pleading to substitute the identify of Officer Doe # 3, file a request to obtain the information necessary to identify Officer Doe # 3, or show cause in writing why Officer Doe # 3 should not be dismissed from the action. (Doc. No. 32.) Plaintiff was expressly warned that his failure to comply with the Court's December 27, 2018 order would result in the dismissal of Officer Doe # 3. (Id.) That deadline passed, and Plaintiff did not comply with the Court's order or otherwise communicate with the Court.

         Therefore, on January 23, 2019, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that Officer Doe # 3 be dismissed, without prejudice, for the failure to serve with process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Doc. No. 33.) Plaintiff was informed that he could file Objections to the Findings and Recommendations within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.)

         On February 8, 2019, Defendant Rojas filed an answer to Plaintiff's second amended complaint. (Doc. No. 35.)

         On February 12, 2019, the Court issued an order referring this case to post-screening Alternative Dispute Resolution and staying this case for a period of 90 days so that the parties could participate in a settlement conference. (Doc. No. 36.)

         On February 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed Objections to the January 23, 2019 Findings and Recommendations and a motion for leave to file late objections for good cause. (Doc. Nos. 37, 38.) On March 11, 2019, Defendant Rojas filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion for leave to file late objections. (Doc. No. 39.) On March 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed a reply to his motion for leave to file late objections. (Doc. No. 40.)

         On April 30, 2019, the settlement conference was held, and ...


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.