Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392-50/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS MANUEL GARCES,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. GAMBOA, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS 

UNTIMELY 

(ECF Nos. 222, 225).

On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “Request for Judgment” that seeks summary 

adjudication of his claims against Defendants Hernandez, Hubbard, Cathey, Wolf, and Huerta.

1

1 This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment 

against Defendants Hernandez, Hubbard, Huerta, Cathey, Wolf, and Allison; Plaintiff’s claims for 

deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants 

Hernandez, Hubbard, Gill, Ibarra, Camacho, Aragon, Ramadan, and Boyd; and Plaintiff’s claims for 

procedural due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendants Gamboa, Babb, and 

Sanders. (ECF No. 18 at 28; ECF No. 21 at 3; ECF No. 79 at 11; ECF No. 80).

Defendants Aragon, Boyd, Camacho, Gill, Ibarra, and Ramadan (“Medical Staff Defendants”) 

filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his available 

administrative remedies as to his Eighth Amendment deliberate medical indifference claims against them. 

(ECF No. 191). An evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Plaintiff filed a timely grievance that 

properly exhausts his claims against the Medical Staff Defendants is currently set for May 28, 2024. (ECF 

No. 229). 

On January 19, 2024, Defendants Allison, Gamboa, and Babb filed a motion for summary 

judgment of Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendant Allison and Plaintiff’s due process claim 

against Defendants Gamboa and Babb. (ECF No. 214). Defendants’ Allison, Gamboa, and Babb’s motion 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 247 Filed 04/30/24 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

(ECF No. 222). Defendants seek to strike Plaintiff’s motion because it is untimely and fails to 

comply with Local Rule 260. (ECF No. 225). Plaintiff opposes. (ECF No. 240). Defendants have 

filed a reply. (ECF No. 242).

For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment is untimely and that Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for the Court to modify 

the dispositive motion deadline. The Court will therefore grant Defendants’ motion to strike 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as untimely.

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 concerns scheduling orders in civil cases. It provides 

that “the district judge—or magistrate judge when authorized by local rule—must issue a 

scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(1). 2 Moreover, “[a] schedule may be modified only for 

good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 

For purposes of determining whether good cause exists to modify a scheduling order, a 

court “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.’” Johnson v. 

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)) (internal quotations omitted). 

Good cause exists when the schedule “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party 

seeking the extension.” Zivkovic, 304 F.3d at 1087 (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).

Considerations of prejudice to the party opposing a modification “might supply reasons to deny a 

motion, [but] the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification 

for summary judgment is pending before the Court. 

2 Defendants move to strike under both under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(f) and 16(b).

Rule 12(f) authorizes the court to strike from any pleading “any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or 

scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). A “redundant” matter is comprised “of allegations that constitute 

a needless repetition of other averments or which are foreign to the issue to be denied.” Wilkerson v. 

Butler, 229 F.R.D. 166, 170 (E.D. Cal. 2005). An immaterial matter “has no essential or important 

relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded,” while an “[i]mpertinent matter consists 

of statements that do not pertain, and are not necessary, to the issues in question.” Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty,

984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev'd on other grounds (quoting 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. 

Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1382, at 706–07, 711 (1990)). “The function of a 12(f) motion to 

strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by 

dispensing with those issues prior to trial....” Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th 

Cir. 2010) (internal citations omitted). 

Because Defendants do not argue that Plaintiff’s motion is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or 

scandalous, the Court finds that Rule 12(f) does not apply. Therefore, the Court will evaluate Defendants’ 

request under Rule 16(b), regarding when a Court’s scheduling order can be modified.

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 247 Filed 04/30/24 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

... If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. As to whether 

a party's actions qualify as diligent, “carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence 

and offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Id.

Courts in the Ninth Circuit routinely decline to adjudicate the merits of an untimely 

motion for summary judgment absent a showing of good cause. See Ski Lifts, Inc. v. Schaeffer 

Mfg. Co., No. C19-0062-JCC, 2020 WL 978505, at * 2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 28, 2020) (relying on 

Rule 16(b)(4)’s “good cause” standard to deny plaintiff’s motion for relief from the dispositive 

motion deadline after plaintiff “failed to demonstrate that it acted with diligence” in calendaring 

error); Sou v. Bash, No. 2:15-cv-00698-APG-VCF, 2017 WL 5615210, at * 3 (D. Nev. Nov. 21, 

2017) (denying motion for summary judgment “as untimely” after party “failed to establish good 

cause for considering his motion for summary judgment” or provide any “explanation for the 

untimely filing or why it should still be considered”); Hayes v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., No. 1:10-cv00011-EJL, 2013 WL 4545890, at * 2 (D. Idaho Aug. 27, 2013) (denying pro se prisoner’s 

motion for leave to file untimely dispositive motion because plaintiff failed to offer “any specific 

facts or evidence to support” plaintiff’s allegation that his access to courts has been hindered or 

“demonstrate[e] his diligence in otherwise trying to comply with the dispositive motion 

deadline”); See Doe ex rel. Doe v. State of Hawaii Dept. of Ed., 351 F.Supp.2d 998, 1007 (D. 

Haw. 2004) (granting request to “dismiss” counter-motion for summary judgment because 

plaintiffs “did not show the diligence required to meet the ‘good cause’ standard for modifying a 

Rule 16 order”).

Whether to consider a late-filed summary judgment motion is left to the Court’s 

discretion. Saroyan Lumber Co., Inc. v. El & El Wood Prods. Corp., 126 F.App’x 371, 372-74 

(9th Cir. 2015) (district courts have discretion to consider untimely motions for summary 

judgment); Kolab Heating & Cooling v Ins. Corp. of New York, 154 F.App’x 569, 570 (9th Cir. 

2005) (no abuse of discretion in adjudicating merits of untimely motion for summary judgment 

based on district court’s finding that party demonstrate good cause for the late filing, the motion 

was only four days late, and non-moving party failed to demonstrate that it was prejudiced by late 

filing); CPALead, LLC v. Adeptive Ads LLC, No. 2:14-cv-01449-JCM-CWH, 2016 WL 4941991, 

at * 2 (D. Nev. Sept. 14, 2016) (discussing Kolab Heating & Cooling, 154 F.App’x 569) (“Kolab 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 247 Filed 04/30/24 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Heating & Cooling provides only that, upon an actual finding of good cause, a district court may 

accept an untimely motion for summary judgment.”).

II. DISCUSSION

The Court issued a scheduling order in this case on October 27, 2022. (ECF No. 78). The 

Court’s scheduling order opened discovery on that date and set a deadline for the filing of 

dispositive motions by no later than September 25, 2023. (Id. at 6). The scheduling order also 

provides that “[t]he dates set in this order are considered to be firm and will not be modified 

absent a showing of good cause, even if a stipulation to modify is filed.” (Id. at 7).

On August 22, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to modify the schedule, and 

extended the deadline for dispositive motions to January 2, 2024. (ECF No. 173). On January 2, 

2024, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to extend the deadline for Defendants to file a 

dispositive motion deadline to January 19, 2024. (ECF No. 207). 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 222) was not filed until February 20, 

2024, after the deadline to file such motions. The Court thus looks to whether Plaintiff had good 

cause to modify the scheduling order to permit a dispositive motion after the deadline.

In opposition to Defendant’s motion to strike, Plaintiff argues that his motion for 

summary judgment could not be filed until after the dispositive motion deadline because 

Defendants failed to properly respond to his interrogatories, requests for admission (RFAs), and 

requests for production. (ECF No. 240 at 1-4). Plaintiff’s opposition raises various discovery 

issues the Court has addressed several times.3Indeed, Plaintiff has filed several motions to 

compel discovery over the course of this case, (see ECF Nos. 106, 126, 130, 149, 163, 164, 181, 

3 See ECF No. 199 (granting, in part, Plaintiff’s motion to compel RFA responses, and otherwise 

denying Plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel Defendants to Answer Production of Documents and to Answer 

Interrogatory request”); ECF No. 187 (denying Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling Defendant 

Allison respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatory requests); ECF No. 167 (denying Plaintiff’s request for leave to

propound additional interrogatories and motion to compel interrogatory responses); ECF No. 137 (denying 

Plaintiff’s motion for additional time to compel discovery and submit interrogatory requests)). Plaintiff has 

also filed objections to these orders with the District Judge, who has overruled them. See ECF No. 195 

(“Upon review of the orders denying Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file discovery motions 

(Doc. 137), denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 142), granting Defendants’ request for an 

extension of time (Doc. 167), denying Plaintiff’s request for leave to propound additional interrogatories 

and motion to compel interrogatories (id.), denying Plaintiff’s request to stay and request for the 

appointment of counsel (Doc. 175), and partially denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 177), the 

Court finds that the assigned magistrate judge correctly applied the applicable law.”).

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 247 Filed 04/30/24 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

223), some of which have been partially granted, (see ECF Nos. 177, 199). To the extent 

Plaintiff’s opposition argues that his untimely motion should be excused because the Court’s 

discovery orders prejudiced Plaintiff’s ability to file a proper summary judgment motion, 

Plaintiff’s argument is unavailing. Plaintiff has been afforded ample time to complete discovery 

in this case, and the Court has considered and adjudicated several discovery motions in advance 

of the deadline to file a dispositive motion. (See ECF Nos. 110, 141, 167, 177, 187, 199). 

Plaintiff additionally argues that he was unable to file a timely dispositive motion because

Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s motion to extend the time for discovery, filed more than a year 

ago, (ECF No. 125) was fabricated. (ECF No. 240 at 4-5). Plaintiff argues that Defendants were 

aware that Plaintiff was on hunger strike and confined in administrative segregation. (Id.) 

Plaintiff’s extension request was filed on March 20, 2023. (ECF No. 125). On April 26, 2023, the 

Court denied Plaintiff’s extension request:

The Court does not find good cause to modify the scheduling order. Discovery 

opened in this case on October 22, 2022. (ECF No. 78). It will remain open until 

August 24, 2023. Moreover, Plaintiff has actively litigated this case since that 

time, including filing two motions to compel. (See ECF Nos. 106, 126, 134). 

Although Plaintiff generally complains that he did not have access to his legal 

property for some of this time period, he does not explain any specific motions he 

plans to file or discovery he cannot take in the remaining months allowed for 

discovery.

(ECF No. 137 at 4). Plaintiff filed a second emergency request for a stay on August 4, 2023. 

(ECF No. 169). The Court denied Plaintiff’s request on September 11, 2023:

The Court will also deny Plaintiff’s request for a stay. Plaintiff does not identify 

any pending motion or deadline that he cannot meet because of his limited access 

to the library. Moreover, Plaintiff has since filed two legal briefs that indicate 

Plaintiff’s continuing ability to litigate this case. (See ECF Nos. 170, 172)

(ECF No. 175 at 2). The fact that Plaintiff’s previously filed motions to stay or extend case 

deadlines were denied does not demonstrate good cause to modify the schedule. 

Plaintiff’s opposition also asserts that he filed a request for an extension of time to file a 

dispositive motion in October 2023, but the Court misinterpreted his request as a request 

pertaining to a “depositive motion.” (ECF No. 240 at 4). Specifically, on October 25, 2023, 

Plaintiff requested a twenty-day extension for the production of “depositive” documents. (ECF 

No. 179). Plaintiff’s motion appeared to discuss documents he was supposed to produce 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 247 Filed 04/30/24 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

following Defendants’ deposition of Plaintiff in July 2023, and stated that “the Defendants’ 

attorney agree[d] to receive them mailing it to his office.” (Id. at 2). Plaintiff indicated additional 

time was needed to produce the documents because the law library was not available for Plaintiff 

“to obtain copies and envelopes for mailing the documents.” (Id.) Plaintiff filed an identical 

request on November 2, 2023. (ECF No. 180). On November 11, 223, the Court addressed 

Plaintiff’s requests:

It is unclear what deadline Plaintiff asks to extend. On August 22, 2023, the Court 

granted Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order:

1. The non-expert discovery deadline is extended to October 23, 2023, for 

the limited purposes of noticing and taking Plaintiff’s deposition and 

supplementing written discovery responses. All other non-expert 

discovery must be completed by August 24, 2023, as set forth in the 

Court’s scheduling order (ECF No. 78).

2. The Court also finds good cause to extend the deadline for the parties 

to file dispositive motions to January 2, 2024.

(ECF No. 173) (emphasis added). Although Plaintiff argues that an extension of 

time is necessary because his access to the law library is limited, the Court does not 

know what Plaintiff means by the “production of depositve documents.” The 

deadline for filing dipositive motions has already been extended to January 2, 2024.

(ECF No. 187 at 3-4). The Court specifically advised Plaintiff that he may renew his request for 

an extension of the dispositive motion deadline:

To the extent Plaintiff requests an extension of time, Plaintiff does not indicate 

why additional time is needed or if his extension request is based on the deadline 

to file dispositive motions, which is currently January 2, 2024. Plaintiff may 

renew this request. The request is therefore DENIED.

(ECF No. 187 at 5) (emphasis added). 

Plaintiff filed several motions and other pleadings with the Court in December 2023, none 

of which stated that Plaintiff sought to extend the deadline to file a dispositive motion. (ECF Nos. 

197, 202, 203, 204, 205). For instance, on December 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for 

Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s motion.” (ECF No. 197). 

On December 13, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion, noting that the Court previously 

directed Plaintiff to follow certain guidelines when requesting extensions of time:

Here, although Plaintiff has failed to clearly identify the relevant deadline or 

include any requests for library access, it appears that he seeks an extension of 

time to respond to Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s October 25, 2023 “motion 

for an extension of time for the deposition of documents” (ECF No. 179). 

Defendants filed their opposition to this request on November 2, 2023. (ECF No. 

183). And on November 14, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s extension request 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 247 Filed 04/30/24 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

regarding deposition documents[.]. . . (ECF No. 187, p. 4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

request for an extension of time will be denied as moot. 

(ECF No. 200 at 2). Thus, the Court provided Plaintiff notice of the dispositive motion deadline 

and specific instructions for filing an extension of time request. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff was not diligent in seeking an 

extension request prior to the dispositive motion deadline and has not established good cause for 

failing to abide by the scheduling order. Accordingly, the Court will strike Plaintiff’s untimely

motion for summary judgment. See Haney v. Adams, No. 1:07-cv-01104-AWI-SMS (PC), 2012 

WL 6097102, at * 1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2012) (granting defendants’ motion to strike pro se 

prisoner’s cross-motion for summary judgment as untimely); CSPC Dophen Corporation v. Hu, 

No. 2:17-cv-1895 MCE DB PS, 2022 WL 2835124, at * 3 (E.D. Cal. July 20, 2022) (citing cases 

and striking plaintiff’s untimely motion for summary judgment); Ransom v, Johnson, No. 1:05-

cv-00086-OWW-GSA-PC, 2010 WL 2219398, at * 1-3 (E.D. Cal. June 2, 2010) (granting motion 

to strike pro se prisoner’s untimely dispositive motion and denying plaintiff’s motion to extend 

dispositive motion deadline because plaintiff’s allegation that medical condition affected ability 

to file motion was unsupported by plaintiff’s record of court filings); Johnson v. Sandy, No. 2:12-

cv-02922 JAM AC P, 2015 WL 1894400, at * 1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2015) (denying pro se

prisoner plaintiff’s three month late dispositive motion as untimely). 

III. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to strike (ECF No. 225) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 222) shall be STRICKEN as untimely.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 247 Filed 04/30/24 Page 7 of 7