(PC) Franks v. Luna

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: July 29, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00414
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOM FRANKS, Case No. 1:25-cv-0414 JLT EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS 13 v. (Doc. 12) 14 G. LUNA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Tom Franks requested to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, in which he asserts the 18 defendants violated his civil rights while he was housed at Kern Valley State Prison. (Docs. 6, 19 10.) On June 3, 2025, the magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations, 20 recommending the denial of Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 9.) The Court 21 served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were 22 due within 30 days. (Id. at 4.) The Court also advised Plaintiff the failure to file timely objections 23 may result in the waiver of rights. (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th 24 Cir. 2014).) More than two weeks after the filing deadline expired, the Court performed a de 25 novo review of matter, found Plaintiff is subject to the three strikes provision of Section 1915(g), 26 and did not show facts to satisfy the “imminent danger” exception. (Doc. 11.) Therefore, the 27 Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee. 28 After performing this de novo review, the Court received objections that are unsigned and eee ene ee NE I EOI I

1 | undated. (Doc. 12.) The Court is unable to find these objections were timely, particularly 2 | because they were received 48 days after the date of service. Plaintiff did not seek an extension 3 | of time to file objections, and he does not explain the delay in any manner. (See generally Doc. 4 | 12.) For this reason, Plaintiffs untimely objections shall be disregarded.' See, e.g., Branch □□ 5 Yates, 2011 WL 443639, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2011) (disregarding objections as untimely 6 | when filed beyond the objection period). Thus, the Court ORDERS: 7 1. Plaintiff's untimely objections to the Findings and Recommendations are 8 DISREGARDED. 9 2. Plaintiff SHALL pay the filing fee as ordered by the Court. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: _ July 29, 2025 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 'Tn the Findings and Recommendations, the Court informed Plaintiff that “[a]ny objections shall be limited to no more than 15 pages, including exhibits.” (Doc. 9 at 4.) Despite this order, Plaintiff's 94 | objections totaled 87 pages, including exhibits. “Page limits promote judicial economy and “encourage litigants to hone their arguments and to eliminate excessive verbiage.” Lacomba v. Eagle Home Loans & Inv., LLC, 2023 WL 6201597, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2023) (quoting Fleming v. County of Kane, 855 F.2d 496, 497 (7th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted)). Towards this end, courts impose various sanctions for 26 | failure to comply with the imposed limits, including striking a brief entirely or declining to consider pages beyond the limit. See Swanson v. U.S. Forest Serv., 87 F.3d 339, 345 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming the district 27 || court's decision to strike a brief that did not comply with the page limit); Plaintiff is reminded of his obligation to comply with all orders of the Court—including page limits identified— and that failure 28 | to comply with the orders may result in sanctions. See Swanson, 87 F.3d at 345.