Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00973/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00973-14/pdf.json

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

---

1

13cv973-GPC-BGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Brandon Meeks,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. Nunez; T. Scott,

Defendant.

Case No.: 13cv973-GPC-BGS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 

MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF AND 

SETTING FORTH AMENDED 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

I. BACKGROUND

On July 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a copy of the Court’s Order 

dated June 22, 2016. (ECF No. 173.) The Court granted this request on July 15, 2016 

and ordered the Clerk of Court to (1) provide Plaintiff with a copy of the docket 

proceedings to date so that Plaintiff may review it; and (2) provide Plaintiff with a copy 

of the Court’s June 22, 2016 Order [at docket number 163] which sets forth a briefing 

schedule on Defendants’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions. (ECF No. 175.) The Court 

also set forth an amended briefing schedule on Defendants’ Motion for Terminating 

Sanctions. (Id.) 

On August 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Opposition, Motion for Ruling, in which he again states that he has not received the 

Court’s order at Docket No. 163 or an order on his Motion requesting a copy of the 

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 181 Filed 08/15/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

13cv973-GPC-BGS

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

Court’s Order filed on July 13, 2016 (ECF No. 173). (See ECF No. 180.) Plaintiff also 

requests additional time to file his opposition. (Id.)

II. DISCUSSION

This is the second time that Plaintiff has claimed he has not received mail from the 

Court setting forth a briefing schedule for Defendants’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions. 

(ECF Nos. 173, 180.) Initially, the Court offered Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt 

regarding whether or not he received mail from the Court. However, the Court now feels 

it necessary to point out that there is a presumption that mail from the Court not returned 

as undeliverable was, in fact, received. Nunley v. City of Los Angeles, 52 F.3d 792, 796 

(9th Cir. 1995) (noting that where court’s docket included notations that a judgment was 

mailed and not returned by the post office, its receipt may be assumed). This 

presumption can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence that the mail was 

not received. See In re Bucknum, 951 F.2d 204, 207 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Mail that is 

properly addressed, stamped, and deposited into the mail is presumed to be received by 

the addressee . . . The presumption can only be overcome by clear and convincing 

evidence that the mailing was not, in fact, accomplished.”) Plaintiff has presented no 

evidence that he has not received any of the Court’s orders. Nor has any mail been 

returned to the Court as undeliverable. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not presented 

clear and convincing evidence of his failure to receive this Court’s orders, as is required 

to rebut the presumption that mail sent from the Court was, in fact, received. 

Plaintiff is advised of the importance of his participating in the litigation process, a 

process he initiated by filing this lawsuit. The Court will allow Plaintiff two weeks to 

file his opposition to Defendants’ Motion. The Clerk is again ordered to send a copy of 

ECF No. 163 to Plaintiff, but Plaintiff is advised that the contents of that order have all 

been repeated in this order (with dates and deadlines adjusted), and failure to receive 

ECF No. 163 will not excuse a failure to file an opposition motion to Defendants’ 

Motion for Terminating Sanctions. 

Plaintiff must file his opposition with the court and serve it on Defendants by

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 181 Filed 08/15/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

13cv973-GPC-BGS

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

August 29, 2016. The opposition is limited to twenty pages. The Defendants can then 

file papers in reply to Plaintiff’s papers, and those papers have to be filed by Defendant 

with the court and served on Plaintiff by September 6, 2016. Defendants’ reply brief is 

limited to ten pages.

Plaintiff is cautioned that a failure to file and serve an Opposition to the Motion by 

the August 29, 2016 deadline may result in the Court issuing a recommendation that this 

action be dismissed. See e.g., Sanchez v. Rodriguez, 298 F.R.D. 460, 468 (C.D. Cal.

2014). Terminating sanctions can be imposed if the plaintiff’s noncompliance is “‘due to 

willfulness, bad faith or fault.’” Henry v. Gill Industries, 983 F.2d 943, 946 (9th 

Cir.1993) (citation omitted); see also Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly 

Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007). In deciding Defendants’ Motion for 

Terminating Sanctions, the Court will analyze Defendants’ allegations and supporting 

authority, as well as Plaintiff’s response to their motion. If Defendants’ motion for 

terminating sanctions is granted, Plaintiff’s case will be dismissed and there will be no 

trial.

III. CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff is ordered to file an opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Terminating 

Sanctions no later than August 29, 2016. 

2. Defendants may file a reply no later than September 6, 2016.

3. The Clerk of Court is ordered to mail a copy of ECF Nos. 163, 174, and 175 to 

Plaintiff. 

4. The Clerk of Court is ordered to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 15, 2016

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 181 Filed 08/15/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3