(PC) McCoy v. Holguin ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAKEITH MCCOY, Case No. 1:15-cv-00768-DAD-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION 13 v. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 A. HOLGUIN, ET. AL., ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO SET TRIAL DATE 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 175, 176) 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to set a trial date, filed January 4, 2022. 18 (Doc. No. 175). Defendants file a motion noting no opposition to setting a trial date, but request 19 leave to file a motion for summary judgment within sixty days of the date on the order. (Doc. No. 20 176). Plaintiff opposes. (Doc. No. 178). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants 21 Defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion for summary judgment within sixty days and denies 22 without prejudice the motion to set a trial date. 23 BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff proceeds in this action on his second amended complaint filed as a pro se 25 prisoner. (Doc. No. 15, “SAC”). According to the SAC, Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Eighth 26 Amendment rights by using excessive force on March 12, 2015 at California Correctional 27 Institution, Tehachapi. (See Doc. Nos. 115, 116). Plaintiff also pursues failure to intervene 28 claims against Defendants. (Id.). Related to the same incident, Plaintiff received disciplinary 1 reports for attacking a correctional officer and possession of a weapon, for which he faced 2 criminal prosecution before a California court. (Doc. No. 116 at 2, 6). 3 In the instant motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court set a trial date. (See generally Doc. 4 No. 175). Plaintiff claims repeatedly, over his objections, trial dates have been “vacated and reset 5 to either accommodate the Defendants with a defense from a criminal matter or for reasons 6 unknown to me by the Court.” (Id. at 2). Plaintiff further claims Defendants have “made 7 repeated applications and/or motions to the Court to advance the trial date, which have been 8 granted.” (Id.). Plaintiff states his last trial date was vacated for a settlement conference that 9 “never took place.” (Id. at 3). Plaintiff states he wants his trial to proceed so he can “root out and 10 expose Government oppression.” (Id.). 11 Defendants’ opposition and cross-motion clarifies that to the extent Plaintiff faults defense 12 counsel, or the Court, for delay in this case, the delay was caused first by Plaintiff being 13 prosecuted criminally because of incidents at issue in the SAC, then due to delay with the Covid- 14 19 pandemic and Eastern District Judicial Emergency, and most recently delayed due to the 15 irreconcilable differences Plaintiff had with his court-appointed counsel. (Doc. No. 176 at 4). 16 Regarding a motion for summary judgment, Defendants note that many of the fifteen- 17 named Defendants were not presented when the incident at issue in the SAC is alleged to have 18 occurred and one Defendant was not even working on that day. (Doc. No. 176 at 2). Thus, in 19 consideration of the Court’s calendar and scheduling the trial, Defendants request permission to 20 file a motion for summary judgment within sixty days in effort to potentially shorten trial, or 21 make trial “more manageable.” (Id.). Defendants apologize that a summary judgment motion was 22 not filed earlier and note a change of counsel occurred in the case. (Id. at 3-4). 23 APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 requires that the court and the parties secure “the just, 25 speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Id. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) 26 provides for extending deadlines for good cause shown, if the request to extend time is made 27 before the original time, or its extension expires; or, on a motion made after the time has expired, 28 if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect. Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil 1 Procedure 16(b)(4) permits a court to modify a scheduling order for good cause shown and with 2 the judge’s consent. Good cause requires less than manifest injustice but a focus on the diligence 3 of the moving party and that party’s reasons for seeking modification are the court’s focus in 4 determining whether to permit an enlargement of time. Stoddart v. Express Services, 2017 WL 5 3333994 *1-*2 (E.D. Ca. August 4, 2017) (other citations omitted). “A scheduling order is not ‘a 6 frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without 7 peril.’” Id. at 1 (other citations omitted). 8 Here, the Court finds good cause to modify the existing scheduling order. Defendants 9 correctly recount the factors contributing to the delay in this case.1 (See generally Doc. No. 176). 10 It has long been published that the Eastern District of California faces a judicial emergency. (See 11 e.g. Doc. No. 164 at 2, n. 1). While the deadline for filing dispositive motions as set forth in the 12 discovery and scheduling order has indeed passed (see Doc. No. 108), Plaintiff’s criminal trial 13 related to the incidents at issue in this action were recently dismissed just shy of one year ago, or 14 on March 22, 2021. (Doc. No. 176 at 2, n. 1). See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 15 (recognizing courts often stay the § 1983 civil action until the criminal case, or the likelihood of a 16 criminal case, has ended). Considering the somewhat recent termination of Plaintiff’s related 17 criminal trial and the totality of the circumstances in this case, the Court finds good cause and it 18 in the best interests of justice to reopen the deadline for filing motions for summary judgment for 19 a limited period. 20 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 21 1. Defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 177) is 22 GRANTED. Defendants may file a motion for summary judgment no later than September 7, 23 2022. 24 25 1 Plaintiff’s motion contains mischaracterizations concerning many of the proceedings and orders, including the Court’s December 3, 2021 minute order vacating a second settlement conference in this matter. 26 (Doc. No. 174). As the docket reflects, the settlement conference was vacated because Plaintiff filed a “notice of non-participation.” (Doc. No. 167)(stating the former settlement conference was 27 “unprofessional,” but recognizing Plaintiff’s “demand is astronomical and cannot be negotiated at settlement.”). 28 1 2. Any opposition from Plaintiff must be filed no later than thirty-days (30) after the 2 | motion for summary judgment is filed. 3 3. Plaintiffs motion to set a trial date (Doc. No. 175) is DENIED without prejudice. 4 > | Dated: _ June 30, 2022 Mile. Th fares Hack 6 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28