Wilson v. Unknown Oceanside Police Officers

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 TEDDY LeROY WILSON, Jr., Case No.: 23-CV-270 TWR (DDL) Inmate #23700343, 12 ORDER (1) GRANTING Plaintiff, 13 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR vs. AN EXTENSION OF TIME 14 TO RESPOND TO REPORT UNKNOWN Oceanside Police Officers; 15 & RECOMMENDATION AND UNKNOWN Tri City Hospital Staff; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, AND 16 UNKNOWN Oceanside Fire Department (2) DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT Staff; UNKNOWN Oceanside Trainers 17 TO SEND PLAINTIFF COPIES and Supervisors,

18 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 94–97) 19

20 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Teddy LeRoy Wilson, Jr.’s Request for Short 21 Continuance (“Mot.,” ECF No. 97) of his January 31, 2025 deadline to respond to the 22 Honorable David D. Leshner’s Report and Recommendation for Order Granting 23 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“R&R,” ECF No. 94). Although Plaintiff’s 24 Motion is dated February 3, 2025, it was received only after the Court had entered its 25 February 6, 2025 Order (1) Adopting Report & Recommendation, (2) Granting 26 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (3) Directing Clerk to Enter Judgment, 27 (4) Dismissing Claims Against Unknown Parties, and (5) for Plaintiff to Show Cause Why 28 His Claims Against Defendant Nelson Should Not Be Dismissed (“Order,” ECF No. 95) 1 and the Clerk of Court had entered Judgment (ECF No. 96). In his Motion, Plaintiff 2 explains that he did not receive any documents from the Court while he was incarcerated 3 between November 20, 2024, and January 27, 2025, (see Mot. at 1–2), and that he only 4 received a copy of Judge Leshner’s R&R from defense counsel on an unspecified date 5 following his release. (See id.) Given that Plaintiff had—at most—only several days to 6 review Judge Leshner’s 34-page R&R and prepare his objections, the Court concludes that 7 Plaintiff has demonstrated excusable neglect sufficient to justify an extension of Judge 8 Leshner’s January 31, 2025 deadline and the undersigned’s February 27, 2025 deadline for 9 Plaintiff to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, (see Order at 3; see also R&R at 10 32–33). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). 11 In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion and EXTENDS 12 Plaintiff’s deadline to file any objections to Judge Leshner’s R&R and a response to the 13 Court’s Order to Show Cause by sixty (60) days from the date of this Order. In the event 14 that the Court receives timely objections from Plaintiff, the Court will vacate its 15 February 6, 2025 Order and “make a de novo determination of those portion of the report 16 . . . to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 17 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). 18 The Court reiterates that “[a] party’s failure to timely file objections may waive the right 19 to raise those objections on appeal,” (see R&R at 34 (citing Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 20 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007)), and that, “[i]f Plaintiff fails adequately to respond to th[e] 21 Order [to Show Cause] within the time provided, the Court will enter a final order of 22 dismissal without prejudice as to Defendant Nelson,” (see Order at 3 (emphasis in 23 original)). Absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extensions of these deadlines 24 will be granted. Finally, to aid Plaintiff in crafting his objections and response, the Clerk 25 of Court SHALL SEND copies of ECF Nos. 94 (Judge Leshner’s R&R), 95 (the Court’s 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 February 6, 2025 Order), and 96 (the Court’s February 6, 2025 Judgment) to □□□□□□□□□□□ 2 ||new address of record. 4 ||Dated: February 10, 2025 [5 14 bre 6 Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28