Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06285/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06285-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

ARLENE MARTINEZ, et al., )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

JOHN W. SNOW, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:04-cv-6285-SMS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME, REQUEST

FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND REQUEST

FOR COUNSEL (DOC. 61)

On December 12, 2006, the Court granted Defendant’s motion

to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; judgment was

entered the same day. By order dated December 6, 2006, the Court

had previously vacated the hearing on the motion, which had been

set for December 15, 2006, and had deemed the motion submitted to

the Court for decision because of the absence of any opposition

and because the Court had determined that the motion was a matter

that was appropriately submitted on the record and briefs without

argument.

One day before the Court’s order granting the motion was

filed, Plaintiff filed a document entitled, “ANSWER TO VACATING

HEARING OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO, REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO SUBMIT

SUPPORTED DOCUMENTS, REQUEST FOR AN ATTORNEY TO BE APPOINTED.”

Case 1:04-cv-06285-SMS Document 64 Filed 12/21/06 Page 1 of 6
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

However, the Court’s order denying the motion was already in the

process of being docketed. Plaintiff did not provide a conformed

copy of her documents for the Court’s use or deliver courtesy

copies to chambers to be brought to the Court’s immediate

attention pursuant to Local Rule 5-133(d)(1) and/or (2).

Plaintiff has submitted 29 pages of documents, but she has

not submitted a declaration or other evidentiary document. She

states that she thought that she had until December 11, 2006, to

file a written opposition. However, the reference to the motion

submitted by Defendants made by Plaintiff (pp. 1-2), apparently

made in an effort to explain her misunderstanding of the

applicable rules and deadlines, does not support her position.

Defendant’s papers remind Plaintiff that she must file opposition

and do not state anywhere that a plaintiff has until four days

before the hearing to file opposition.

Plaintiff states that she is begging the court to accept her

petition as filed. Plaintiff states that she has a terrible

problem of explaining her situation and interpreting the letters

or motions sent to her by the Court. The Court has not sent

Plaintiff any documents in connection with the motion to dismiss,

with the exception of the order vacating the hearing and deeming

the motion submitted.

Plaintiff seeks to have the Court consider her position on

the merits with respect to one of two bases for the Court’s

dismissal, namely, her exhaustion of administrative remedies. It

does not appear that she seeks to have input on the other basis

for dismissal, namely, the issue of sovereign immunity. 

Plaintiff has thus requested an extension of time to file

Case 1:04-cv-06285-SMS Document 64 Filed 12/21/06 Page 2 of 6
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

opposition to the motion, and has submitted papers that she seeks

to have the Court consider as opposition.

To the extent that Plaintiff’s request is viewed as a simple

request for extension of time, Plaintiff’s request is not

meritorious because she has not provided any facts that would

constitute good cause for an extension.

Because judgment has now been entered, it may be appropriate

to consider Plaintiff’s filing as a motion pursuant to Rule 60.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the

reconsideration of final orders of the district court. The Rule

permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or

judgment on grounds of: "(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect; (3) fraud... of an adverse party,... or (6)

any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the

judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The motion for reconsideration

must be made within a reasonable time, in any event "not more

than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was

entered or taken." Id.

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the

trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441

(D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir.

1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law

of a strongly convincing nature to induce the Court to reverse

its prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of

Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), aff'd in part

and rev'd in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987),

cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015, 108 S.Ct. 1752, 100 L.Ed.2d 214

(1988). The Ninth Circuit has stated that "[c]lause 60(b)(6) is

Case 1:04-cv-06285-SMS Document 64 Filed 12/21/06 Page 3 of 6
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

residual and ‘must be read as being exclusive of the preceding

clauses.'" LaFarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement, 791

F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Corex Corp. v. United

States, 638 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1981)). Accordingly, "the clause

is reserved for ‘extraordinary circumstances.'" Id. When filing a

motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 78-230(k) requires a party

to show the "new or different facts or circumstances claimed to

exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior

motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion."

Plaintiff’s opposition was due no later than seventeen days

before the hearing pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(c). Plaintiff

was informed by the Court in a written order filed on March 25,

2005, that she was required to comply with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and the Local Rules; that all court deadlines

would be strictly enforced, and that requests for extensions of

time must state the reason and must be filed with the Court

before the deadline in question; that unless the Court orders

otherwise, all motions to dismiss were to be briefed pursuant to

Local Rule 78-230; and finally, failure to oppose a motion timely

may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion.

Plaintiff has not presented any reason, other than a vague

problem with explaining her situation and interpreting documents

sent to her by the Court, for her failure to submit timely

opposition or for the Court to consider her untimely submissions.

The Court takes judicial notice of its own docket and notes

that Plaintiff has previously opposed motions pending in this

case; further, Plaintiff has filed amended pleadings in response

to a ruling on a motion to dismiss.

Case 1:04-cv-06285-SMS Document 64 Filed 12/21/06 Page 4 of 6
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

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not demonstrated good

cause, excusable neglect, or any other reason justifying relief. 

Further, the Court considered the motion to dismiss on the

basis of the papers timely filed. A court has inherent power to

control its docket and the disposition of its cases with economy

of time and effort for both the court and the parties. Landis v.

North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936); Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9 Cir. 1992). It would require th

the expenditure of substantial amounts of the time of the Court

and its staff as well as significant resources of the opposing

party if the Court and the parties were required to review

serially filed submissions on motions without regard to any

schedule or deadlines. If the Court were to allow unlimited

filings in the manner apparently sought by Plaintiff, the Court

could never be sufficiently certain of the parties’ positions to

be able to rule on a motion presented to it. The Court would not

be able to maintain the orderly administration of justice, and

substantial resources of the Court would be wasted. Such

procedures would be unfair to the parties and the Court.

With respect to Plaintiff’s request for counsel, the Court

may request an attorney voluntarily to represent a person

proceeding in forma pauperis who is unable to afford counsel. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(d). Appointment of counsel by the Court in such

circumstances is discretionary, not mandatory. United States v.

$292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9 Cir. 1995). th

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel,

this court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious

and exceptional cases. Appointment may be made if a court finds

Case 1:04-cv-06285-SMS Document 64 Filed 12/21/06 Page 5 of 6
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

that there are exceptional circumstances after evaluating the

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the party

to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the

legal issues involved; the factors must be viewed together.

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9 Cir. 1991) (citing th

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9 Cir. 1986)). th

However, the Court cannot require an attorney to represent

plaintiff. Mallard v. United States District Court for the

Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989).

Here, in view of the dismissal of the case and the Court’s

determination that there is no basis for relief from the Court’s

determination of the motion to dismiss, no basis for the

appointment of counsel has been presented.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s request for an extension of

time, request for reconsideration, and request for counsel, ARE

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06285-SMS Document 64 Filed 12/21/06 Page 6 of 6