Schlenvogt v. Marshall

Full title: O. PAUL SCHLENVOGT, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT MARSHALL, et. al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 10, 2008

No. 2:06-cv-01613-MCE-GGH (E.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2008)

Opinion

No. 2:06-cv-01613-MCE-GGH.

September 10, 2008

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MORRISON ENGLAND JR., District Judge

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's Order of March 31, 2008.¹ Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in denying his second request for an extension to file objections to Findings and Recommendations.

1 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h).

BACKGROUND

The Court first issued Findings and Recommendations on February 29, 2008 granting Defendants' Amended Motion to Dismiss. Thereafter, Plaintiff had ten days to file his objections, but failed to do so. On March 11, 2008, Plaintiff filed a request for a fifteen-day extension of time to file his objections. The reasons Plaintiff gave for this request were computer malfunctions and that he was unable to put his full attention to the objections.

On March 14, 2008, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order vacating the February 29 Findings and Recommendations and entering new Findings and Recommendations again granting the Amended Motion to Dismiss. In effect, this Order granted Plaintiff his requested extension to file his objections. Plaintiff did not file his objections at that time. Instead, on March 19, Plaintiff again sought an extension of time to file his objections to the Findings and Recommendations. The reason Plaintiff gave for his requested extension was that his computer was continuing to malfunction.

On March 31, 2008, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff's request finding that his "computer malfunction" was not a sufficient reason to grant an extension because the objections could be handwritten if necessary. Also on March 31, 2008, this Court entered an Order adopting the Findings and Recommendations and dismissing this action with prejudice.

Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the March 31, 2008 Magistrate Judge's Order denying his request for an extension of time to file his objections. On April 10, 2008, in conjunction with this Motion, Plaintiff filed his objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

STANDARD

Pursuant to the Eastern District's Local Rule 72-303(f), the standard that the assigned Judge shall use in reviewing a Magistrate Judge's ruling is the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff puts forth one argument in support of his argument to reconsider the Magistrate Judge's Order denying his extension of time — that Plaintiff is a pro se litigant and therefore the Court is required to treat him more leniently than a litigant represented by counsel.²

2 Plaintiff asserts other arguments essentially rehashing his late-filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. Because these arguments are irrelevant to the March 31, 2008 Order denying the extension of time, the Court will disregard them.

Although pleading requirements are, in some instances, relaxed for pro se litigants, the rule of leniency does not necessarily apply to filing deadlines. See Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1086-87 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding deadline for filing demand for jury trial not relaxed for pro se plaintiff). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge's March 31, 2008 Order denying Plaintiff's request for an extension of time was neither "clearly erroneous" nor was it "contrary to law." As such, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge's Order of March 31, 2008 is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.