(PC) Uhuru v. Singh ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KOHEN DIALLO UHURU, No. 2: 20-cv-1664 TLN KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 R. SINGH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff is granted twenty-one days from the date of 19 this order to file objections to the December 10, 2021 findings and recommendations. No further 20 extensions of time to file objections will be granted. 21 On December 10, 2021, the undersigned recommended that defendant’s summary 22 judgment motion on the grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies be 23 granted. (ECF No. 63.) Plaintiff was granted fourteen days to file objections. (Id.) Plaintiff did 24 not file objections. On January 26, 2022, the Honorable Troy L. Nunley adopted the December 25 10, 2021 findings and recommendations and judgment was entered. (ECF Nos. 64, 65.) 26 Pursuant to the mailbox rule, on January 28, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for appointment 27 of counsel. (ECF No. 66 at 3.) Plaintiff alleged that he transferred to the California Medical 28 Facility (“CMF”) on December 14, 2021. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff alleged that he received the 1 December 10, 2021 findings and recommendations “well after” the fourteen days to file 2 objections passed. (Id.) Plaintiff alleged that he was being denied access to his legal property. 3 (Id.) 4 On July 14, 2022, Judge Nunley vacated the January 26, 2022 order and judgment. (ECF 5 No. 67.) Judge Nunley granted plaintiff fourteen days to file objections to the December 10, 6 2021 findings and recommendations. (Id.) Judge Nunley ordered that if plaintiff did not have 7 access to his legal property, he shall inform the court within that time. (Id.) Judge Nunley also 8 denied plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. (Id.) 9 On September 12, 2022, plaintiff’s objections were filed on the court docket. (ECF No. 10 68.) Plaintiff alleges that on May 25, 2022, he transferred from CMF to Mule Creek State Prison 11 (“MCSP”). (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff alleges that he “just received” the July 14, 2022 order on July 26, 12 2022. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he is being denied access to his legal property at MCSP. (Id. at 13 1-2.) Plaintiff’s objections do not address the merits of the December 10, 2021 findings and 14 recommendations. 15 Plaintiff signed his objections on July 27, 2022. (Id. at 2.) The proof of service attached 16 to the objections states that plaintiff mailed the objections on July 27, 2022. (Id. at 86.) Pursuant 17 to the mailbox rule, plaintiff’s objections are deemed filed on July 27, 2022. See Houston v. 18 Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-72 (1988) (deeming notice of appeal to be “filed” when prisoner delivers 19 it to prison authorities for forwarding to the district court); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 20 1107 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Houston mailbox rule applies to § 1983 suits filed by pro se prisoners.”). 21 Therefore, plaintiff’s objections were filed within fourteen days of the July 14, 2022 order.1 22 The undersigned is troubled by the unexplained delay between the date plaintiff mailed his 23 objections and the date they were received by the court. The undersigned also observes that 24 records from the California Department of Corrections (“CDCR”) reflect that plaintiff has been 25 transferred back to CMF from MCSP. Plaintiff failed to notify the court of this change of 26 address, as well as his change of address when he transferred to MCSP, as required by Local Rule 27 28 1 The exhibits attached to plaintiff’s objections pre-date July 27, 2022. 1 182(f). 2 Plaintiffs claim in his objection that he is being denied access to his legal property at 3 || MCSP is moot because plaintiff is no longer housed at MCSP. 4 In an abundance of caution, plaintiff is granted twenty-one days from the date of this order 5 || to file objections addressing the merits of the December 10, 2021 findings and recommendations. 6 || No further extensions of time to file objections will be granted. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is granted twenty-one days from 8 | the date of this order to file objections addressing the merits of the December 10, 2021 findings 9 || and recommendations. No further extensions of time to file objections will be granted. 10 | Dated: October 12, 2022 Aectl Aharon 12 KENDALL J.NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Uh1664.eot 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28