Holmes v. Estock
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Charles Holmes, a California inmate proceeding through counsel, moved for an additional extension of time to file a response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment in his § 1983 medical care action. The Court granted the motion, setting a deadline of April 17, 2020, for the response and April 3, 2020, for any necessary notices regarding counsel substitution or withdrawal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's ex parte motion for an extension of time to file a response to the motion for summary judgment is granted.“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's ex parte motion.” | agree with court The court's decision to grant the extension is consistent with the principle that summary judgment motions should be decided on the merits rather than by default due to procedural delays, especially when the plaintiff has already received multiple extensions and the court has expressed a preference for substantive briefing. The order provides a clear deadline and conditions for the next steps. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a straightforward procedural ruling that grants a requested extension of time. It relies on a standard Ninth Circuit case to support the preference for deciding summary judgment motions on the merits. The reasoning is sufficient for the type of motion presented.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CHARLES HOLMES, Case No. 3:16-cv-02458-MMA-BLM 10 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S EX 11 v. PARTE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 12 ESTOCK, et al., 13 Defendants. [Doc. No. 111] 14 15 16 Plaintiff Charles Holmes, a California inmate, brings this civil rights action 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment right to 18 adequate medical care. Plaintiff, proceeding through counsel, has filed a Third Amended 19 Complaint (“TAC”) against Defendants. See Doc. No. 81. Defendants move for 20 summary judgment as to all claims. See Doc. No. 96. To date, for reasons set forth in an 21 order issued by the Court on January 29, 2020, see Doc. No. 110, Plaintiff has not filed a 22 response in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment despite being 23 granted multiple extensions of time in which to do so. See Doc. Nos. 100, 102, 110. 24 Plaintiff now moves for an additional extension of time in which to file a response 25 in opposition to Defendants’ motion. See Doc. No. 111. Plaintiff’s counsel has 26 submitted a declaration in support of the ex parte motion. See id. Plaintiff’s counsel sets 27 forth several grounds in his declaration regarding the failure to file a response brief, and 28 states that he intends to withdraw as counsel of record. As such, Plaintiff’s counsel 1 requests that the Court grant Plaintiff an additional sixty (60) days in which to file a 2 ||response brief, either proceeding through new counsel or pro se. 3 As the Court has previously explained, “a summary judgment motion must be 4 decided on the merits, and it ‘must be denied on no other grounds than that the movant 5 ||has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating the absence of triable issues.’”” Doc. No. 6 || 110 at 2 (citing Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993)). The 7 Court prefers not to proceed in this matter unless absolutely necessary without a 8 || substantive response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 9 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's ex parte motion. Plaintiff, proceeding 10 || through counsel or pro se, must file a response in opposition to Defendants’ motion for 11 ||summary judgment on or before April 17, 2020. If Plaintiff files a timely response, 12 || Defendants may file a reply in support of their motion on or before April 30, 2020. 13 In addition, if Plaintiff retains new counsel to represent him in this action, he must 14 || file a Notice of Substitution of Counsel as soon thereafter as practicable. If Plaintiff does 15 || not retain new counsel and wishes to proceed pro se, Plaintiff must file a Notice 16 || substituting himself as counsel of record. If Plaintiff does not retain new counsel and 17 || does not wish to proceed pro se, Plaintiffs current counsel of record must file a Motion 18 ||to Withdraw as Counsel. The appropriate Notice of Substitution or Motion to Withdraw 19 || must be filed on or before April 3, 2020. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 DATE: February 14, 2020 Mikel La- . hill 7 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28