Wilson v. Unknown Oceanside Police Officers

Opinion

TEDDY LeROY WILSON, Jr., Case No.: 23-CV-270 TWR (DDL) Inmate #23700343, ORDER (1) GRANTING Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR vs. AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO REPORT UNKNOWN Oceanside Police Officers; & RECOMMENDATION AND UNKNOWN Tri City Hospital Staff; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, AND UNKNOWN Oceanside Fire Department (2) DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT Staff; UNKNOWN Oceanside Trainers TO SEND PLAINTIFF COPIES and Supervisors,

Defendants. (ECF Nos. 94–97)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Teddy LeRoy Wilson, Jr.’s Request for Short Continuance (“Mot.,” ECF No. 97) of his January 31, 2025 deadline to respond to the Honorable David D. Leshner’s Report and Recommendation for Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“R&R,” ECF No. 94). Although Plaintiff’s Motion is dated February 3, 2025, it was received only after the Court had entered its February 6, 2025 Order (1) Adopting Report & Recommendation, (2) Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (3) Directing Clerk to Enter Judgment, (4) Dismissing Claims Against Unknown Parties, and (5) for Plaintiff to Show Cause Why His Claims Against Defendant Nelson Should Not Be Dismissed (“Order,” ECF No. 95) and the Clerk of Court had entered Judgment (ECF No. 96). In his Motion, Plaintiff explains that he did not receive any documents from the Court while he was incarcerated between November 20, 2024, and January 27, 2025, (see Mot. at 1–2), and that he only received a copy of Judge Leshner’s R&R from defense counsel on an unspecified date following his release. (See id.) Given that Plaintiff had—at most—only several days to review Judge Leshner’s 34-page R&R and prepare his objections, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has demonstrated excusable neglect sufficient to justify an extension of Judge Leshner’s January 31, 2025 deadline and the undersigned’s February 27, 2025 deadline for Plaintiff to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, (see Order at 3; see also R&R at 32–33). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion and EXTENDS Plaintiff’s deadline to file any objections to Judge Leshner’s R&R and a response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause by sixty (60) days from the date of this Order. In the event that the Court receives timely objections from Plaintiff, the Court will vacate its February 6, 2025 Order and “make a de novo determination of those portion of the report . . . to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). The Court reiterates that “[a] party’s failure to timely file objections may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal,” (see R&R at 34 (citing Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007)), and that, “[i]f Plaintiff fails adequately to respond to th[e] Order [to Show Cause] within the time provided, the Court will enter a final order of dismissal without prejudice as to Defendant Nelson,” (see Order at 3 (emphasis in original)). Absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extensions of these deadlines will be granted. Finally, to aid Plaintiff in crafting his objections and response, the Clerk of Court SHALL SEND copies of ECF Nos. 94 (Judge Leshner’s R&R), 95 (the Court’s / / / / / / / / / February 6, 2025 Order), and 96 (the Court’s February 6, 2025 Judgment) to □□□□□□□□□□□ new address of record. Dated: February 10, 2025 [5 14 bre Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge