Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01000/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01000-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC YLMO SANFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. GUDINO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-01000-HSG 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 33

Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting that the Court deny Defendants’ request for an 

extension of time to file their reply in support of their summary judgment motion. Dkt. No. 33. 

He argues that the Court erred in granting Defendants’ request for an extension of time without 

first allowing Plaintiff to oppose the request. The Court has already granted the extension of time, 

Dkt. No. 30, so the Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a request that the Court grant him leave 

to file a motion seeking reconsideration of the order granting an extension of time. See N.D. Cal. 

L.R. 7-9(a) (motions for consideration may not be filed without leave of court). 

In seeking leave to file a motion of reconsideration, the moving party must show 

reasonable diligence in bringing the motion and one of the following: there has been a material 

change in fact or law since the entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought 

that was unknown to the moving party at the time of the interlocutory order; the emergence of new 

material facts or a change of law since the entry of the order; or a manifest failure to consider 

material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before the order 

was entered. See N.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9(b). Plaintiff has not met the standard for bringing a motion 

for reconsideration as set forth in Local Rule 7-9. Moreover, the grant or denial of an extension of 

time to file dispositive briefing is well within the broad discretion granted to district courts to 

Case 4:18-cv-01000-HSG Document 34 Filed 05/24/19 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

manage their dockets. Cf. Sherman v. U.S., 801 F.2d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff’s 

request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting Defendants an 

extension of time to file their reply brief is DENIED. Dkt. No. 33.1 

This order terminates Dkt. No. 33.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

 

1 The Court has reviewed both Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration and his May 20, 2019 letter 

to the Court, wherein Plaintiff sets forth the reasons that he opposes the extension of time and 

argues that the Court is showing favor to Defendants. Dkt. Nos. 32 and 33. The Court notes that 

Plaintiff was also granted an extension of time to file his opposition. Dkt. No. 26.

5/24/2019

Case 4:18-cv-01000-HSG Document 34 Filed 05/24/19 Page 2 of 2