From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hamilton v. Woodford

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 14, 2006
No. CIV S-05-1761 DFL GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-05-1761 DFL GGH P.

August 14, 2006


ORDER


By Findings and Recommendations, filed on June 21, 2006, this court recommended dismissal of this action because, inter alia, after having been granted three thirty-day extensions of time, in addition to the original thirty-day period he was granted to file a civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, petitioner/plaintiff failed to file a complaint. The pro se habeas petition originally filed had been dismissed because his complaint was as to conditions of confinement rather than a challenge to the validity or constitutionality of his conviction or sentence.

Petitioner/plaintiff has demonstrated a repeated failure to comply with court orders as was set forth in the Findings and Recommendations. He nevertheless now asks the court to vacate the June 21, 2006, Findings and Recommendations because he finally understands that he should have filed a civil rights complaint and is now willing to do so. Tellingly, plaintiff does not include with the request a proposed complaint. Petitioner/plaintiff has failed to provide any legitimate basis for his request, seeking to justify his dilatoriness by concerns which the court had previously addressed. This request will be denied.

Nor does petitioner/plaintiff's subsequent request for an extension of time to file objections to the same Findings and Recommendations provide a good faith basis for granting the request. He does not explain why it is necessary for him to conduct extensive legal research when the recommendation of dismissal is based on his inability to comply with court orders. Having repeatedly indulged petitioner/plaintiff with generously granted extensions of time to no avail, the court will no longer to do so.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's June 29, 2006, request to vacate the June 21, 2006, Findings and Recommendations, is denied; and

2. Plaintiff's July 13, 2006, motion for extension of time to file objections to the June 21, 2006, Findings and Recommendations, is denied.


Summaries of

Hamilton v. Woodford

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 14, 2006
No. CIV S-05-1761 DFL GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2006)
Case details for

Hamilton v. Woodford

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE HAMILTON, Petitioner, v. J.S. WOODFORD, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Aug 14, 2006

Citations

No. CIV S-05-1761 DFL GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2006)