Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-05810/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-05810-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA MCCOLM,

Plaintiff(s), No. C 02-5810 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

STAY OR CONTINUANCE

SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING 

AUTHORITY, et al.,

Defendant(s).

_______________________________/

Before the court is yet another last-minute request from plaintiff, this time to vacate

tomorrow’s hearing of defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff further

requests that the hearing not be rescheduled until she has recovered from emotional

distress and acute illness. She provides no estimate as to when this might occur, although

she says that her doctor has suggested eight weeks. All defendants oppose her request.

Having denied similar requests for a continuance or to stay on April 9, 2007 and May

8, 2007, and in view of time constraints presented by yet another request presented so

close to the event sought to be continued, the court has neither the time nor the inclination

to once again set forth the lengthy procedural history of this case. Instead the court

incorporates by reference the prior two orders denying similar requests and makes the

following additional observations.

Dispositive motions are due to be heard tomorrow, May 23, 2007. Trial is scheduled

to commence on July 30, 2007, which means that pretrial papers must be filed by June 29,

2007. The court is unavailable for most of the month of June, which means that any ruling

on dispositive motions must be made before the period of the court’s unavailability begins

Case 4:02-cv-05810-PJH Document 217 Filed 05/22/07 Page 1 of 3
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

on June 4, 2007. The court has repeatedly advised the parties that the trial would not be

continued given the age of this case and the other factors referenced by the May 8, 2007

order.

Plaintiff has requested (and been granted) one or more continuances of almost

every deadline that has been imposed by this court or by the federal or local rules, for

reasons having to do with her own health, the health of family members, or other litigation

in which she is involved. Similarly, this latest request is based on what plaintiff refers to as

emotional distress and acute illness and what her physician refers to as both “asthma and

chronic bronchitis” and “acute medical condition and unavoidable life stressors.” Decl.

George Fulmer, M.D. ¶ 5. As the court has already ruled on requests to stay the

proceedings for these reasons, the court will not revisit those rulings here.

The one thing that distinguishes this request from past requests, is that plaintiff now

advises that her ailing father has passed away. Plaintiff does not provide, however, any

indication as to the date of his death or any details that might permit the court to determine

if the hearing conflicts with his funeral or whether a brief continuance might accommodate

her needs. Moreover, counsel for defendant previously filed a notice of unavailability for

the period May 26, 2007 to June 17, 2007, so even a brief continuance might not be

possible.

In short there is no way to accommodate plaintiff without continuing the trial date. 

The court declines to do so for all of the reasons stated in the prior orders and for two

additional reasons. First, it is difficult to assess the weight to be given to Dr. Fulmer’s

opinion that plaintiff is “unable to attend to her legal duties or appear for court hearings at

this time,” given that it is also his opinion that “it has been medically and emotionally

impossible for plaintiff to attend to her legal duties such as preparation of sufficient

documents or appear for competent argument for months.” (emphasis added) Decl. George

Fulmer, M.D. ¶ 8. As noted by the court in the May 8, 2007 order, and by defendant A1Security in its opposition to this last motion, plaintiff has indeed been physically able to

Case 4:02-cv-05810-PJH Document 217 Filed 05/22/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

attend to her legal duties. She has filed no fewer than ten motions/requests in the last 90

days, several of them voluminous, and all of them coherent. Thus, Dr. Fulmer’s opinion is

obviously not based on his personal knowledge of plaintiff’s activities and is likely based

solely on her self-reports.

Second, the court holds no hope that rescheduling the trial would result in anything

than more of the same. As recounted in the May 8, 2007 order, throughout this litigation,

plaintiff has requested continuance after continuance. It is odd for a plaintiff to resist going

to trial with such ardor, but it appears to the court that plaintiff has vociferously litigated

every aspect of this case except the merits. As previously stated, enough is enough. 

Motion for stay or continuance is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2007

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cv-05810-PJH Document 217 Filed 05/22/07 Page 3 of 3