Rodgers v. Hill

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 24, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00837
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MILTON MELVIN RODGERS, Case No.: 24-CV-837 JLS (BLM)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) DENYING 13 v. PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR ADDRESS CHANGE AS MOOT; 14 JEFF MACOMBER, Secretary of the AND (2) GRANTING PETITIONER’S California Department of Corrections and 15 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF Rehabilitation, TIME 16 Defendant. 17 (ECF Nos. 11, 12) 18 19 On November 21, 2024, the Court received Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major’s 20 Report and Recommendation for Order Denying Petitioner Milton Melvin Rodger’s 21 (“Petitioner”) Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF No. 10. Objections to the Report and 22 Recommendation were due by December 20, 2024. See ECF No. 10 at 16. On 23 December 20, 2024, Petitioner filed a document titled “Notice of Address Change Motion.” 24 ECF No. 11. On January 13, 2025, Petitioner filed a Motion requesting an extension of the 25 deadline to file objections to the pending Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 12. 26 MOTION FOR ADDRESS CHANGE 27 Though Petitioner’s Motion for Address Change is far from clear, the Court 28 understands Petitioner to allege he “will move to put court on notice of address change,” 1 because of a “safety concern since arriving at Kern Valley State Prison.” ECF No. 11 at 1. 2 Petitioner appears to allege he must be transferred to Salinas Valley State Prison, “where 3 [his] domestic partner is currently housed,” because it is the “only level 4180 design prison 4 [he] can safely program.” Id. at 2. 5 The Court is uncertain whether Petitioner is requesting relief from the Court, or 6 merely alerting the Court to an event he believes will occur. To the extent Petitioner seeks 7 injunctive relief in the form of an order to transfer him to Salinas Valley State Prison, such 8 issue is not properly before this Court, as the subject of the instant action is Petitioner’s 9 challenge to his conviction in San Diego Superior Court.1 See Randall v. Reyes, 10 No. 2:23˗cv-01826-SB, 2024 WL 3850587, at *2 (D. Or. July 24, 2024) (holding without 11 “a sufficient nexus” between the claims raised in petitioner’s request for preliminary 12 injunction and the claims set forth in the underlying petition, i.e., requesting “relief of the 13 same character,” “the district court lacks authority to grant the relief requested”) (quoting 14 Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015)). 15 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for Address Change (ECF No. 11) as 16 MOOT. However, in the event Petitioner’s address does change, Petitioner must inform 17 the Court of his current address. See S.D. Cal. LR 83.11(b) (“A party proceeding pro se 18 must keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to his current address.”). 19 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 20 In Petitioner’s subsequent Motion for Extension of Time, he alleged he never 21 received a copy of the Report and Recommendation, and thus could not file an objection. 22 Id. at 1. He further indicated he “is in Restricted Housing Unit 20 plus hours of Isolation 23 Room confine [sic]” and has “very limited access” to the library. Id. He stated, “4 to 8 24 week projected deadline will be reasonable.” Id. at 2. 25 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), the Court may extend a filing deadline 26 for “good cause” where a request for such an extension is made before the original due date 27

28 1 || passes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). Where a request for extension is made after the original 2 date passes, the Court may, for good cause, extend the time if the party failed to act 3 || because of “excusable neglect.” Jd. 6(b)(1)(B). 4 This rule “[is] to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing 5 cases are tried on the merits.” Naharaja v. Wray, No. 3:13-cv-1261-HZ, 6 WL 3986133, at * 2 (D. Or. June 30, 2015) (quoting Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 7 (9th Cir.1983)). “Consequently, requests for extensions of time made before the 8 || applicable deadline has passed should ‘normally . . . be granted in the absence of bad faith 9 the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.’” Jd. (quoting 10 || Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258-59 (9th Cir.2010)). 11 Considering Petitioner’s allegations and pro se status, the Court finds good cause 12 appears and GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 12). 13 Petitioner SHALL FILE any written objections to the Report and Recommendation 14 || (ECF No. 10) with the Court on or before February 27, 2025. Any reply to the objections 15 || SHALL BE FILED on or before March 13, 2025. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: January 24, 2025 (een 18 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28