DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff paid the required filing fee. The action is proceeding on plaintiff's original complaint (ECF No. 1) in which he presented federal constitutional and statutory claims premised on the alleged refusal of prison officials to permit him to attend Jumu'ah Prayer Services at California State Prison-Sacramento where he is incarcerated.
A settlement conference was held on June 20, 2014, and concluded without a settlement being reached. (
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this court's order filed February 19, 2014 (ECF No. 43) adopting the assigned Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations and granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff argues that he was not timely served with a copy of the underlying findings and recommendations and was thereby denied notice of the deficiencies in his complaint and could not timely file objections to the findings and recommendations. For the reasons that follow, plaintiff's motion is denied. However, plaintiff will be accorded additional time to file an amended complaint.
On February 19, 2014, the undersigned adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations filed January 16, 2014, thereby granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss. (
Meanwhile, on March 3, 2014, plaintiff filed a "Motion for Relief from the District Court Order on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss." (ECF No. 49.) Plaintiff asserts therein that he was not timely served with a copy of the findings and recommendations, and therefore did not have the opportunity to file objections thereto. Plaintiff, however, does not identify the objections he wished to raise.
Review of plaintiff's memorandum and attached exhibits, and review of the court's docket, generally supports plaintiff's statement that he did not timely receive a copy of the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. Despite a notation in the docket that a copy of the findings and recommendations were promptly served on plaintiff by mail on January 16, 2014, plaintiff's prison mail log indicates that he thereafter received no mail from this court until February 10, February 14, and February 20, 2014. (
Local Rule 230(j) requires that any motion for reconsideration set forth "the material facts and circumstances surrounding" the motion and, in pertinent part, "why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion." E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j). Plaintiff's motion satisfies these requirements.
The instant motion is properly construed as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Although plaintiff relies on subsection (b)(1) ("mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect"), his motion is more appropriately considered under the broader umbrella of subsection (b)(6) ("any other reason that justifies relief"). Rule 60(b)(6) applies in extraordinary circumstances, not otherwise expressly addressed by Rule 60. Its purpose is to "vest[] power in courts adequate to enable them to vacate judgments whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish justice." Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 614-15 (1949).
As plaintiff emphasizes, when a district judge delegates to a magistrate judge the task of issuing findings and recommendations, the authority of the magistrate judge is provisional.
In the instant case, no objections were filed by any party in response to the findings and recommendations. The court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations after conducting a de novo review. (
Because the court applied this heightened standard of review in considering the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, the court is persuaded that the result would be no different if the order was vacated and plaintiff were permitted additional time to submit his objections. The failure of plaintiff to identify his objections to the findings and recommendations underscores the appropriateness of this assessment.
For these reasons, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 49), will be denied. As a result, plaintiff's motion to stay this action pending the court's ruling on this matter (ECF No. 58), and motion to expedite the court's ruling (ECF No. 64), will both be denied as moot.
The court will, however, grant plaintiff's request (ECF No. 49 at 4) for additional time within which to respond to the court's February 19, 2014 order. Specifically, plaintiff will be granted thirty days from the filing date of this order to file and serve an amended complaint that conforms to the requirements set forth in the court's February 19, 2014 order, as explained more fully in the assigned magistrate judge's January 16, 2014 findings and recommendations.
In addition, because the deadlines established by the current Scheduling Order (ECF No. 56) are now imminent (discovery due by August 1, 2014, dispositive motions due by October 24, 2014), those deadlines are hereby extended as follows: the deadline for conducting discovery, including the deadline for filing motions to compel discovery,
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 49), of this court's February 19, 2010 order, is denied.
2. Plaintiff may, within thirty days after the filing date of this order, file and serve an amended complaint that conforms to the requirements set forth in the undersigned's February 19, 2014 order, and the magistrate judge's January 16, 2014 findings and recommendations.
3. The Scheduling Order issued April 11, 2014 (ECF No. 56), is amended as follows:
4. Plaintiff's request to stay this action (ECF No. 58), and request to expedite the instant ruling (ECF No. 64), are denied as moot.