Huerta v. Nielsen
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court addressed a procedural issue where the pro se plaintiff's opposition brief to the government's summary judgment motion was not filed with the Clerk by the deadline, though it was served on the opposing party. The court ordered the Clerk to file the opposition brief nunc pro tunc and vacated the scheduled hearing, taking the motion under submission on the papers.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Ordering the Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff's opposition brief nunc pro tunc“the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff's opposition brief, Doc. No. 38-1, nunc pro tunc to April 7, 2020.” | agree with court The court correctly applied its inherent authority to manage its docket and its discretion to accept late filings from pro se litigants to prevent a forfeiture of rights due to a technical mailing error. The record indicates a good faith attempt to comply with the deadline, making the nunc pro tunc filing appropriate. |
Vacating the previously scheduled motion hearing and taking the motion under submission on the papers“The Court VACATES the previously scheduled motion hearing.” | agree with court The court properly exercised its discretion under Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) to decide the motion on the written record, as the matter was fully briefed and no oral argument was necessary. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural ruling that correctly applies local rules and federal practice to resolve a filing irregularity. It relies on the correct standard for summary judgment to justify the need for the plaintiff's response.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID HUERTA, Case No.: 18cv1640-MMA (LL)
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF 13 v. COURT TO FILE PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION BRIEF; 14 NIELSEN, et al., 15 Defendants. [Doc. No. 38-1]
16 VACATING MOTION HEARING 17 18 Plaintiff David Huerta is a Seized Property Specialist with United States Customs 19 and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. He brings this action pro se 20 pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, which 21 protects federal employees from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or 22 national origin. Plaintiff alleges that his supervisor racially discriminated and retaliated 23 against him. See Doc. No. 1. The government moves for summary judgment as to all 24 claims. See Doc. No. 33. The government’s motion is currently set for hearing on April 25 27, 2020. As such, Plaintiff’s response in opposition to the motion was due for filing on 26 or before April 13, 2020. See CIVLR 7.1.e.2. To date, the Court has not received any 27 submission from Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff served the government with an opposition 28 brief, which the government has attached as an exhibit to its reply brief. See Doc. No. 1 38-1. The proof of service accompanying Plaintiff's opposition brief indicates that he 2 a copy of the brief to the Clerk of Court via U.S. Mail. See id. at 13. 3 A summary judgment motion must be decided on the merits, and it “must be 4 denied on no other grounds than that the movant has failed to meet its burden of 5 || demonstrating the absence of triable issues.” Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 6 ||950 (9th Cir. 1993). A substantive response from Plaintiff will assist the Court in 7 || performing its duty. 8 Accordingly, in consideration of Plaintiff's pro se status and what appears to be a 9 || good faith attempt to timely submit his opposition brief, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of 10 || Court to file Plaintiff's opposition brief, Doc. No. 38-1, nunc pro tunc to April 7, 2020. 11 The matter is now fully briefed. The Court takes the government’s motion under 12 ||submission on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. 13 || See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). The Court VACATES the previously scheduled motion 14 ||hearing. No appearances are required. The Court will issue a written ruling in due 15 || course. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ||} DATED: April 20, 2020 = Vt whl = ‘he 18 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28