Christopher D. Warsaw v. Captain J. Garcia, CDCR A.W. - A May and Staff A. Perez
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- David D. Leshner (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending dismissal of the case. The court granted the motion in part, extending the deadline to file objections to February 17, 2026, and the deadline for replies to March 2, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. No. 17) is granted in part.“Good cause appearing, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED IN PART as follows: written objections to the Report and Recommendation [see Dkt. No. 15] must be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than February 17, 2026.” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard, which is the appropriate standard for granting extensions of time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b). The plaintiff's stated reason (needing time to ascertain facts) is a valid basis for good cause, particularly for a pro se litigant. The court also clarified that the extension applies to objections, not an amended complaint, which is a necessary clarification given the confusing title of the plaintiff's motion. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural posture (pending R&R), applies the correct standard (good cause) for the motion, and grants a reasonable extension. It correctly cites Turner v. Duncan to warn the plaintiff of the consequences of missing the new deadline. The footnote clarifying that the deadline is for objections, not an amended complaint, is helpful and accurate. The order is procedurally sound and addresses the motion directly.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER D. WARSAW, Case No.: 25-cv-1262-JO-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 14 CAPTAIN J. GARCIA, CDCR A.W - A MAY AND STAFF A. PEREZ, 15 [Dkt. No. 17] Defendants. 16 17 On February 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court of 18 California, County of San Diego. Dkt. No. 1-3. Defendants removed the action to 19 this Court on May 16, 2025. Dkt. No. 1. 20 On May 29, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State 21 a Claim. Dkt No. 2. 22 On December 29, 2025, the Court issued a Report and Recommendation 23 For Order Granting Defendants' Motion To Dismiss With Leave To Amend. Dkt. 24 No. 15. The Court ordered the parties to file any written objections to the Report 25 and Recommendation by January 12, 2026 and any replies to the objections by 26 January 26, 2026. Id. at 11. 27 On January 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time that was 28 1 ||entered onto the docket on January 14, 2026. Dkt. No. 17. Plaintiff seeks a sixty- 2 ||day extension of time to file his objections to the Court's Report and 3 ||Recommendation. /d. at 1. In support, Plaintiff states that he needs additional 4 ||time to “ascertain all facts [] to satisfy the Court ruling.”' /d. 5 Good cause appearing, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED IN PART as follows: 6 written objections to the Report and Recommendation [see Dkt. No. 15] must 7 || be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than February 17, 2026.7 8 || The document should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” 9 ||Any reply to the objections shall be filed with the Court and served on all parties 10 later than March 2, 2026. The parties are advised that the failure to file 11 ||objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections 12 ||on appeal of the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 13 || 1998). 14 IS SO ORDERED. 15 || Dated: January 15, 2026 ei ZL 16 Tb Cp Ce 17 Hon. David D. Leshner 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 22 |I1 Attached to Plaintiff's motion are several documents related to inmate Michael 23 || Henderson. Dkt. No. 17 at 2-11. The Court is unsure of the purpose of these >A documents and has not considered them in its ruling. 25 ||? The instant motion is entitled “"Motion” Extension of Time. Leave to Amend 3 Pursuant to Court Order December 29, 2025.” Dkt. No. 17. For clarity, the 6 February 16, 2026 deadline is not a deadline for Plaintiff to file an amended 27 ||complaint. That deadline has not been set and will bet set by Judge Ohta should she choose to issue an Order Adopting the December 29, 2025 Report and 28 || Recommendation.