(HC) Winston v. Trate

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

(HC) Winston v. Trate

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 LEANTHONY WINSTON, ) Case No.: 1: 24-cv-0837 JLT HBK ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER DISREGARDING PETITIONER’S ) UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO 13 v. ) AMEND THE PETITION ) 14 B.M. TRATE, ) ) 15 Respondent. ) ) 16 )

17 On August 27, 2024, the magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations, 18 recommending the Court dismiss the petition and deny Petitioner’s requests for injunctive relief. (Doc. 19 9.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that any 20 objections were due within 14 days. (Id. at 6.) The Court also advised Petitioner the failure to file 21 timely objections may result in the wavier of rights. (Id. citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

772 F.3d 834

, 22 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) 23 On September 20, 2024, the Court performed a de novo review of the matter, dismissed the 24 petition, and entered judgment. (Docs. 10, 11.) After the Court entered judgment—27 days after the 25 date of service of the Findings and Recommendations—Petitioner submitted objections to the prison 26 mailing system, accompanied by a motion to amend the petition. (Doc. 12 at 5.) Petitioner does not 27 explain his untimely objections and did not seek leave for an extension of time. Although he reports 28 the prison mail was restricted due to a lockdown from August 9 to August 20, 2024 (id. at 1), the 1 || reported lockdown ended before the Court served its Findings and Recommendations and did not 2 impact Petitioner’s ability to timely respond to the Court. Petitioner’s untimely objections shall be 3 || disregarded. See, e.g., Tucker v. Hartley,

2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67000

, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. July 3, 4 || 2010) (disregarding objections filed by a petitioner as untimely when filed beyond the objection peric 5 || and after the Court entered judgment). Thus, the Court ORDERS: 6 1. Petitioner’s untimely objections to the Findings and Recommendations are 7 DISREGARDED. 8 2. The motion for leave to amend is DISREGARDED. 9 3. The action SHALL remain closed. 10 11 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 || Dated: _ January 16, 2025 Charis [Tourn 13 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown