(PC) Davis v. Baines

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 JAHMAL OMNIKO DAVIS, Case No. 1:24-cv-00207-KES-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION v. FOR CONTINUANCE 13 T. BAINES, et al., 14 (ECF NO. 19) Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff Jahmal Davis is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 17 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion 18 for Continuance (ECF No. 19), which asks for the Court to continue the case until he is 19 released on April 17, 2025. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s 20 motion. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on February 15, 2024. (ECF No. 23 1). Plaintiff alleged excessive use of force by correctional officers at Corcoran State Prison. 24 (See generally ECF No. 1). The Court screened the complaint and on April 11, 2024, and found 25 that Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims. (ECF No. 15). The Court gave Plaintiff 30 26 days to either file an amended complaint or file a statement with the Court that he wants to 27 stand on his original complaint. (Id. at 6–7). The Court warned that “Failure to comply with 28 this order may result in the dismissal of this action.” (Id. at 7; see also ECF No. 3 at 1 (warning 1 Plaintiff that failure to follow the Court’s orders and all applicable rules “will be grounds for 2 imposition of sanctions which may include dismissal of the case.”)). 3 Subsequently, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to respond to 4 the Court’s screening order. (ECF No. 17). The Court granted Plaintiff “additional 30 days, 5 until June 17, 2024, to respond to the Court’s Screening Order (ECF No. 15).” (Id. at 6). 6 Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or a statement with the Court that he 7 wishes to proceed on his original complaint, or otherwise communicate with the Court by the 8 extended deadline. 9 Accordingly, on August 2, 2024, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to 10 dismiss this case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to 11 prosecute and failure to follow Court’s orders. (ECF No. 18). 12 On August 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Continuance. (ECF No. 19). In the 13 motion, Plaintiff states that he broke his right hand, which is his writing hand, and asks for a 14 continuance until he is released, April 25, 2025. 15 II. LEGAL STANDARD 16 “When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good 17 cause, extend the time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Good cause requires less than manifest 18 injustice but a focus on the diligence of the moving party and that party’s reasons for seeking 19 modification are the court’s focus in determining whether to permit an enlargement of time. 20 Stoddart v. Express Services, 2017 WL 3333994 *1-*2 (E.D. Ca. August 4, 2017) (other 21 citations omitted). “The District court possesses broad discretion to manage its own docket, 22 which includes inherent power to control disposition of causes on its docket with economy of 23 time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 24 254–55 (1936). 25 III. ANALYSIS 26 The Court does not find good cause to hold this case in abeyance for over eight months. 27 Plaintiff was given an opportunity to respond to the Court’s screening order by either filing an 28 amended complaint or filing a notice that he intends to stand on his complaint more than four 1 months ago, on April 11, 2024. (ECF No. 15). However, Plaintiff failed to do so. Moreover, 2 || according to the medical report attached to Plaintiff’s motion, his hand was injured on or about 3 || June 26, 2024, which was after Plaintiff’s extended deadline to respond had already passed. 4 || Thus, Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the case or comply with court orders was not due to a hand 5 |}injury. Additionally, the requested continuance to April 17, 2025, more than eight months from 6 || now, is not a reasonable request. Rather, it indicates that Plaintiff has chosen not to prosecute 7 || this case at this time. 8 That said, the current recommendation of dismissal for failure to prosecute is without 9 || prejudice to Plaintiff filing his claim at a later time. Thus, if the recommendations are accepted 10 || by the District Judge, Plaintiff would still be able to file a complaint in a separate case after he 11 || is released.! 12 IV. ORDER 13 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Continuance. (ECF No. 19). 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: _ August 14, 2024 [Je hey — 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

28 ' The Court is not taking a position on the effect that any delay would have on the applicable statute of limitations.