(PC) Rogers v. Warden ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PHILIP JAMES ROGERS, Case No. 1:18-cv-0846-JLT-BAK (HBK) (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 14 YURIDIAN RODRIGUEZ, GRANT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 75) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Philip James Rogers is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) This action proceeded on an 20 Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Yuridian Rodriguez. 21 Plaintiff requests leave to file belated objections to the undersigned’s Findings and 22 Recommendations that the Court grant summary judgment in Defendant’s favor. (See Doc. No. 23 72.) 24 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 25 On August 4, 2021, Defendant Rodriguez filed a motion for summary judgment based on 26 a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. No. 61.) Plaintiff filed a response in 27 opposition, arguing that prison officials made the grievance process unavailable by improperly 28 rejecting Plaintiff’s appeal. (Doc. No. 67 at 6.) Plaintiff further argued that he followed the 1 instructions of prison officials “to seek relief in an alternative grievance process where all 2 available remedies were fully exhausted by fully granting the requested relief.” (Id.) 3 On March 18, 2022, the Court entered findings and recommendations to grant 4 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 72.) The Court found that the allegations 5 in Plaintiff’s CDCR 602 appeal did not support a claim of deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s 6 health by Defendant. Moreover, Plaintiff did not submit his grievance for second or third level 7 review. Thus, the Court determined that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies 8 prior to filing this action. The findings and recommendations concluded with a notice to the 9 parties: 10 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 11 Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and 12 recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 13 Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 14 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 15 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 16 (Id. at 11 (alteration in original).) 17 Twenty-four days passed, and neither party filed written objections to the findings and 18 recommendations. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the District Court conducted a 19 careful de novo review of the entire file and found that the findings and recommendations were 20 supported by the record and proper analysis. (Doc. No. 73.) Therefore, on April 11, 2022, the 21 Court entered an Order adopting in full the findings and recommendations, granting Defendant’s 22 motion for summary judgment, and directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of 23 Defendant and to close the case. (Id.) The Clerk of Court entered judgment pursuant to the 24 Court’s order the same day. (Doc. No. 74.) Thus, judgment was entered and the case is closed. 25 II. DISCUSSION 26 A. Request to File Untimely Objections 27 On April 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file objections to the 28 Court’s findings and recommendations of March 18, 2022. (See Doc. No. 72.) Plaintiff 1 acknowledges that he missed the fourteen-day deadline to file objections. He states that he relies 2 on the assistance of others to prepare his pleadings, and because of COVID-19 restrictions on 3 access to the library, these individuals were unable to assist Plaintiff in a timely manner. 4 In the Court’s first information order, the Court advised that parties must comply with the 5 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court. (Doc. No. 3.) The Court 6 cautioned that, absent good cause, deadlines are strictly enforced. A request for an extension of 7 time is required to state good reason for the request and must be filed before the deadline expires. 8 (Id. at 3 (citing L.R. 144).) The inability of non-attorney assistants to meet Court deadlines does 9 not constitute good cause for Plaintiff’s failure to file timely objections or to seek an extension of 10 time.1 As a pro se party, Plaintiff is responsible for his own pleadings. 11 B. Plaintiff’s Objections 12 In the instant motion, Plaintiff stated his objections as follows: 13 . . . Plaintiff here by [sic] objects to the Findings and Recommendations, his possition [sic] on the relevant issues have been set forth in his previous pleadings 14 on file in this matter. He stated his possition [sic] that Administrative remedies 15 were either unavailable and/or fully exhausted. Based on the documents on file in this matter Defendants’ [sic] motion 16 should be denied. 17 (Doc. No. 75.) Plaintiff’s objections indicate that he has no new arguments to present to the 18 Court. Instead, he relies on arguments that were previously considered by the Court. In making 19 its findings and recommendations, the Court fully considered Plaintiff’s opposition to 20 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Moreover, in adopting the findings and 21 recommendations and granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the District Court 22 conducted a careful review of the entire file, including Plaintiff’s arguments that his form 602 23 inmate appeal was improperly rejected and made unavailable or fully exhausted. 24 C. Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 25 Rule 60 permits a party to file a motion for relief from a final judgment, order, or 26 proceeding. The Court may grant relief for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, 27 surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or 28 1 The Court afforded Plaintiff ten extra days to file objections or seek an extension of time. 1 | misconduct; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, discharged, 2 | based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no 3 | longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(6). 4 To the extent that Plaintiff's motion can be liberally construed as a motion under Rule 60, 5 | Plaintiff has not asserted any of the enumerated reasons for relief from the Court’s order or 6 | judgment. Plaintiff's arguments that administrative remedies were unavailable or fully 7 | exhausted has been considered and rejected by the Court after careful consideration of the 8 | parties’ positions and supporting evidence. 9} I. CONCLUSION 10 Regardless of the intent of Plaintiff's motion, Plaintiff relies on arguments that he 11 | previously asserted in pleadings in this case. The Court has fully considered Plaintiffs 12 || arguments, both in its findings and recommendations and in the final order. 13 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for leave to file objections to the 14 | findings and recommendations to grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 15 | 75) is moot, as judgment was already entered by t the time Plaintiff moved. In the alternative the 16 | motion is DENIED because Plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause. 17 | Dated: _ April 22, 2022 Wile. Th. PoareA Hack 19 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28