Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_79-cv-01630/USCOURTS-cand-3_79-cv-01630-4/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICE S. THOMPSON ET AL., on behalf

of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, Acting Secretary,

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation,

Defendant. /

No. C 79-01630 WHA

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO

FILE RESPONSE TO

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON

MODIFICATION OF THE

CONSENT DECREE

The parties and the movant seeking to intervene have stipulated to an extension of the

deadline for plaintiffs and defendants to file their responses to the supplemental brief filed by

the movant for intervention. They seek a new deadline of March 28, 2006. 

Any stipulation requesting an order changing time that would affect the date of a

deadline already fixed by court order must be accompanied by a declaration that “[s]ets forth

with particularity[] the reasons for the requested enlargement . . . [and] [d]escribes the effect the

requested time modification would have on the schedule of the case.” Civil L.R. 6-2(a)(1), (3). 

The Court issued an order setting the March 23, 2006, deadline for plaintiffs and

defendants to file their responses to the movant’s supplemental brief on modification of the

consent decree (Order re Scheduling and Plaintiff, Feb. 9, 2006). The stipulated request for an

extension until March 28 would affect that deadline. The parties therefore were required to

submit a declaration setting forth the reasons for the requested enlargement and describing any

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 867 Filed 03/24/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

effect the extension would have on the schedule for the case. Such a declaration was not

received in chambers nor is it listed on the case docket. 

In the future, the Court expects full compliance with the Local Rules. (Compliance with

Civil L.R. 6-2(a)(2), requiring disclosure of “all previous time modifications in the case,” is

excused in the instant action, due to its long duration.) In the case of the present request, the

declaration would have assisted the Court in deciding whether to grant the request. The Court

nevertheless will decide the request immediately, since all parties agree to the extension and

therefore no one is prejudiced by noncompliance and no substantial rights are affected. See

Nunley v. City of L.A., 52 F.3d 792, 795 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] district judge has broad discretion

to depart from local rules . . . where it makes sense to do so and substantial rights are not at

stake.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

The request is GRANTED. The approval shall not be the basis of any further extensions. 

The hearing will be at 8 a.m., April 6. The Court notes that the motion to intervene is

unopposed and that no statement of non-opposition was filed. The deadline for filing either of

these was March 23. If the parties seek an enlargement of time to file such papers, they must

make a proper request. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2006 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 867 Filed 03/24/06 Page 2 of 2