Taylor v. Kelety
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Lula Mae Taylor, proceeding pro se, moved for reconsideration of the court's denial of her request for leave to file excess pages in opposition to a motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion for reconsideration and granted leave to file a 50-page opposition.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Reconsideration Granted“the Court in its discretion grants Plaintiff leave to file an opposition of fifty (50) pages.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the decision to allow excess pages is within its inherent discretion to control the docket. While the court noted the plaintiff did not demonstrate good cause, it exercised its discretion to grant the request due to the plaintiff's pro se status. This is a permissible exercise of judicial discretion. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the principle that district courts have inherent discretion to manage their dockets, including page limits. It cites appropriate authority for this proposition. The decision to grant the request despite the lack of 'good cause' is a discretionary judgment based on the pro se status of the plaintiff, which is a common and accepted practice in federal courts to ensure access to justice. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order of this nature.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LULA MAE TAYLOR, Case No.: 20-cv-1987-DMS-AGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 v. RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 14 JULIA CRAIG KELETY, et al., EXCESS PAGES 15 Defendants. 16 17 On March 5, 2021, Plaintiff Lula Mae Taylor, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for 18 reconsideration of the Court’s February 17, 2021 denial of her request for leave to file 19 excess pages in opposition to Defendants California Judicial Council, Julia Craig Kelety, 20 and Superior Court of California’s (“Judicial Defendants”) motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 21 27.) 22 “Given [a] district court’s inherent power to control [its] docket[], whether to grant 23 leave to exceed the page limits set forth in the Civil Local Rules appears to be at the full 24 discretion of the Court.” Traylor Bros. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., No. 08-CV-1019- 25 L WVG, 2012 WL 1019966, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2012) (citing United States v. W.R. 26 Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)). Although Plaintiff has not 27 demonstrated good cause, given that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court in its 28 discretion grants Plaintiff leave to file an opposition of fifty (50) pages. 1 Plaintiff is ordered to file her opposition to the Judicial Defendants’ motion within 2 || fourteen (14) days of this Order. The Judicial Defendants may file a reply within fourteen 3 || (14) days of the filing of Plaintiff's response in opposition. Plaintiff is once again warned 4 ||that failure to comply with the Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or an 5 || order of the Court may be grounds for dismissal or other sanctions. See Civ. L.R. 83.1. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 || Dated: March 10, 2021 em Dh 9 an Yn. 10 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28