Johnson v. Allison
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The court issued an administrative order requiring the parties to comply with the deadlines set in a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, noting that the case is not stayed despite the physical inaccessibility of the Clerk's office due to the pandemic. The court ordered that any requests for extensions must be made via ex parte motion.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Parties are required to comply with the deadlines for filing objections and replies to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.“These deadlines take into account the present situation, and the parties should continue to comply with them regardless of whether the Clerk’s office continues to be physically inaccessible.” | agree with court The court is exercising its inherent authority to manage the docket and ensure the timely resolution of the case. Given the context of the pandemic and the availability of electronic filing, maintaining the existing deadlines is a reasonable procedural measure. The warning regarding waiver of appeal rights is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent. |
The case is not stayed.“The case is not stayed.” | agree with court A stay is a discretionary remedy. The court found that the physical closure of the Clerk's office did not render compliance with deadlines impossible, especially with electronic filing options available. Therefore, a stay was not warranted. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural directive. It correctly identifies the available filing methods (mail/electronic) and applies the correct legal consequence for missing deadlines (waiver) by citing the appropriate Ninth Circuit authority. The reasoning is sufficient for a scheduling order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID LEONARD JOHNSON, Case No.: 19cv1673-LAB (KSC)
12 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO 13 v. COMPLY WITH DEADLINES 14 MARION SPEARMAN, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 On April 7, Magistrate Judge Karen Crawford issued her report and 18 recommendation. Any objections were required to be filed by May 8, 2020, and any reply 19 to the objections no later than May 22. At present, the Clerk’s office is physically 20 inaccessible because of restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, though documents 21 may be still be filed by mail or electronically. These deadlines take into account the present 22 situation, and the parties should continue to comply with them regardless of whether the 23 Clerk’s office continues to be physically inaccessible. 24 The case is not stayed. If compliance with the deadlines becomes impractical or 25 impossible, the parties should seek an extension by ex parte motion, which must explain 26 why an extension is needed. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those 2 || objections on appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9™ Cir. 1991). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: April 8, 2020 ( dnd, 44 bu wh 5 Hon. Larry Alan Burns 6 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