Walker v. Krol ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JEFFREY E. WALKER, Case No. 15-cv-05819-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE 9 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 61, 62 10 KROL, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 This order addresses Plaintiff’s requests for an extension of time to file the supplemental 14 briefing ordered by the Court on July 6, 2023. Dkt. Nos. 61, 62. 15 BACKGROUND 16 Plaintiff commenced this action on or about December 18, 2015, over eight years ago. 17 Dkt. No. 1. The Court found that the complaint stated certain cognizable claims and ordered 18 service. Dkt. No. 9. On August 7, 2017, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice due to 19 Plaintiff’s failure to attend his own deposition pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) which provides 20 district courts with the authority to dismiss an action because of a plaintiff’s failure to comply with 21 court orders or to prosecute an action; and entered judgment in favor of Defendants. Dkt. Nos. 35, 22 36. On January 28, 2022, more than four years after the action was dismissed, Plaintiff requested 23 that the Court vacate the dismissal and judgment pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) and reopen 24 the case. Dkt. No. 49. Plaintiff alleged that he was unable to prosecute the case earlier because he 25 had been involuntarily medicated during the relevant time period. Id. On July 6, 2023, the Court 26 ordered the parties to provide supplemental briefing on two specific issues, to assist the Court in 27 deciding Plaintiff’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion. Dkt. No. 54. Defendants filed their 1 brief was due October 23, 2023, but Plaintiff did not file anything with the Court until a month 2 and a half later on December 6 and 8, 2023, when he requested extensions of time to file his 3 responsive supplemental brief, Dkt. Nos. 61, 62. 4 DISCUSSION 5 In his requests for an extension of time,1 Plaintiff stated that he had been unable to work on 6 his supplemental brief because he is prosecuting multiple other cases simultaneously, including his 7 civil commitment case; he was hospitalized in July 2023; carpel tunnel and hand surgery limited 8 this ability to write for a while; he is suffering from numerous health issues, including COVID-19 9 and kidney failure; and Plaintiff had not received Defendants’ supplemental brief as of December 10 6, 2023. Plaintiff also requests that he be allowed to obtain his Coalinga State Hospital mental 11 health records from 2016 to 2021. See generally Dkt. Nos. 61, 62. Defendants oppose the request 12 for an extension of time. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not shown the good cause required 13 by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 because Defendants have been prejudiced by Plaintiff’s delays throughout the 14 life of this case, that Plaintiff has not explained why he delayed 45 days after the deadline had 15 expired to seek an extension of time; Plaintiff’s hand surgery only reduced his working hours by 16 half, not entirely; Plaintiff’s other lawsuits do not provide a basis for a finding of excusable 17 neglect; and Plaintiff has not demonstrated good faith in requesting an extension of time because 18 more than four months have passed since the deadline and Plaintiff has not filed his supplemental 19 briefing, or indicated when he might do so. Dkt. No. 63. 20 The Court agrees that Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for the extensive delay in 21 filing the supplemental briefing. 22 Plaintiff’s choice to file numerous lawsuits does not constitute good cause for delaying this 23 (or any other) case. In addition, delays prejudice the opposing party and affect the availability of 24 relevant evidence. Moreover, Defendants note that Plaintiff has failed to meet deadlines in his 25 other cases as well, Dkt. No. 63 at 3 n.2, casting doubt on this claim that other litigation prevents 26 him from meeting the deadlines in this case and raising concerns about his regard for court 27 1 deadlines. Dkt. No. 63 at 3 n.2. 2 Plaintiff’s hand injury does not constitute good cause for granting an extension of time. 3 Plaintiff’s hand injury does not seem to have significantly affected his litigation activity, as he 4 reports that he is still actively litigating numerous cases. 5 Finally, if Plaintiff seeks his medical records, he should request them directly from 6 Coalinga State Hospital. Neither the Court nor Defendants are responsible for providing Plaintiff 7 with these records. Given that these are Plaintiff’s personal medical records, it is unclear why 8 Plaintiff is unable to obtain them. However, if Plaintiff believes that that he requires a subpoena 9 to access these records, he may file a request with this Court for issuance of a subpoena. The 10 request must be accompanied by a showing that Plaintiff is only able to obtain these records via a 11 third-party subpoena.2 The Court notes that Plaintiff has been aware of the need for these records 12 since supplemental briefing was ordered on July 6, 2023. 13 However, in the interests of justice, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff a final extension of time 14 to April 8, 2024 to file the supplemental briefing ordered by the Court on July 6, 2023. With this 15 extension of time, Plaintiff will have been granted approximately a five month extension of time. 16 No further extensions of time will be granted. Plaintiff’s motion to reopen pursuant to Fed. R. 17 Civ. P. 60(b)(6), Dkt. No. 49, will be deemed submitted as of April 8, 2024, and the Court will 18 decide the motion based on the pleadings deemed submitted as of April 8, 2024. The Court will 19 apply the mailbox rule to Plaintiff’s filings.3 20 CONCLUSION 21 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff a final extension of time to 22 April 8, 2024 to file the supplemental briefing ordered by the Court on July 6, 2023. No further 23 extensions of time will be granted. Plaintiff’s motion to reopen pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 60(b)(6), Dkt. No. 49, will be deemed submitted as of this date, and the Court will decide the 25 2 For example, Plaintiff should provide documentation of his requests for the requested records 26 and the denials. 3 In determining when a Section 1983 suit filed by a pro se prisoner is filed, the “mailbox” rule 27 applies. Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009). A Section 1983 complaint is 1 motion based on the pleadings deemed submitted as of April 8, 2024. 2 This order terminates Dkt. Nos. 61, 62. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: 3/6/2024 ° wooD S. GILLIAM, JR. □ 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 41 © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28