Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02829/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02829-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

DANIEL G. HUFFMAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv2829-LAB (DHB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS;

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

JUDICIAL NOTICE;

ORDER ACCEPTING FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT AS

FILED; AND

ADMONITION TO PLAINTIFF’S

COUNSEL

vs.

DANIEL PARMO, et al.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff, a prisoner represented by counsel, filed his complaint in this case on

December 5, 2011, bringing civil rights claims pertaining to conditions of confinement, and

also claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. At the same time, a notice of noncompliance with Civil Local Rule 5.4(a) (regarding mandatory electronic filing) was

generated. The notice included the admonition “**Counsel must register for CM/ECF on

the court’s web site, www.casd.uscourts.gov, within 5 business days of receipt of this

notice.” (bold in original).

On May 3, 2012, the summons was returned executed, and Court records show that

on that day a login and password was sent to Plaintiff’s counsel, Okorie Okorocha, Esq. On

May 16, Defendant Parmo, the sole named Defendant, filed a motion to dismiss, with a

- 1 - 11cv2829

Case 3:11-cv-02829-LAB-DHB Document 13 Filed 09/18/12 Page 1 of 5
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

hearing date of June 27, 2012. This was referred to Magistrate Judge David Bartick for

report and recommendation, and the hearing was set before him. On June 25, after no

opposition was filed, Judge Bartick ordered Plaintiff to file his opposition to the motion no

later than July 9. The order said that if Plaintiff did not file an opposition before then, it would

be presumed he had no opposition to the court deciding the motion on the papers before it.

The docket shows that a copy of that order was served electronically on Plaintiff’s counsel.

Instead of filing an opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel on September 16 filed a First

Amended Complaint, a Request for Judicial Notice, and a Notice of Appearance.

Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c), failure to file an opposition to a motion when due

can constitute consent to the motion’s being granted. Because Plaintiff filed an amended

complaint, the Court infers that he admits the motion to dismiss was meritorious and should

have been granted. The motion to dismiss (Docket no. 6) is GRANTED, and the original

complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff could have filed his amended complaint

within 21 days after being served with Defendant’s motion to dismiss. In this case, he filed

it late and without leave. In view of the policy favoring decisions on the merits, and the fact

that Plaintiff is bringing civil rights claims, the Court will accept the First Amended Complaint

as filed. See Nwandu v. Bach, 2010 WL 2487194, at *2 (S.D.Cal., June 15, 2010) (citing

Karim–Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988)) (noting

Court’s obligations to avoid allowing civil rights claims to be decided on the merits, rather

than “trumped by technicalities”). 

At the same time, the Court is not required to allow Plaintiff repeated attempts to

correct defects he already knows about. Because Plaintiff, after seeing the motion to

dismiss, filed an amended complaint, it is clear Plaintiff was on notice of what Defendant

identified as defects in the complaint, and agreed with Defendant’s observations. Should it

prove that the First Amended Complaint fails to correct the defects identified in the motion

to dismiss, the Court will not assume Plaintiff has been sandbagging by holding relevant

facts back in hopes of pleading them later. Rather, the logical assumption would be that

- 2 - 11cv2829

Case 3:11-cv-02829-LAB-DHB Document 13 Filed 09/18/12 Page 2 of 5
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

Plaintiff cannot plead additional facts to correct those defects, and that further opportunities

to amend would be futile. 

If Plaintiff believes he needs to amend his complaint further, he should seek leave to

do so or obtain Defendant’s written consent, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Any further

amended complaints submitted in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 will be rejected for filing.

Plaintiff’s counsel filed a request for judicial notice (Docket no. 10), the body of which

states as follows:

As is clear from the “notice” the court generated and is attached hereto, the

Plaintiff was NOT on the notice list of these proceedings and was not able

to participate thus far in the case.

(Docket no. 10 at 2.) The attachment shows that a copy of Defendant’s motion to dismiss

(Docket no. 6) was emailed to Defendant’s counsel but not Plaintiff’s counsel. The reason

for this is not clear. Although Court records show Plaintiff’s counsel’s CM/ECF registration

was complete on May 3, it appears that he was not yet entered in the docket as counsel of

record until May 30, see Docket no. 7 (noting Notice of Electronic Filing was regenerated on

that date, to reflect Mr. Okorocha’s entery in the docket as counsel of record). But he had

notice of this. After that was corrected, he was give notice by email of the May 30 order

1

setting a briefing schedule, (see Regenerated Notice of Electronic Filing, Docket no. 7,

showing email notice was sent to Mr. Okorocha), and the June 25 order requiring him to file

an opposition. (See Notice of Electronic Filing, Docket no. 8.)

All that being said, it is perfectly clear Plaintiff’s counsel had notice of the motion to

dismiss. The certificate of service for the motion to dismiss shows that Defendant’s counsel

served Mr. Okorocha by U.S. mail. And the receipts for Judge Bartick’s May 30 and June 25

orders (Docket nos. 7 and 8) show that copies of those orders were emailed to Mr. Okorocha

at the same email address that is now in the docket. Even assuming Mr. Okorocha never

received the motion to dismiss in the mail, he was definitely served with Judge Bartick’s

The reason Plaintiff’s counsel was not in the docket as counsel of record is unclear; 1

it may have been the result of docketing error, or a technical problem. Regardless, the fact

that Plaintiff’s counsel was not listed in the docket as counsel of record with complete

contact information (even though opposing counsel were) should have prompted him to

inquire.

- 3 - 11cv2829

Case 3:11-cv-02829-LAB-DHB Document 13 Filed 09/18/12 Page 3 of 5
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

orders setting a briefing schedule and requiring him to file an opposition to the motion. See

this District’s Electronic Case FilingAdministrative Policies and Procedures Manual, § 2(d)(2)

(requiring registered CM/ECF users to monitor email accounts regularly and open email

notices promptly); see also Civil Local Rule 5.4(d) (registration as CM/ECF user constitutes

consent to electronic service of all filed documents). 

Furthermore, Mr. Okorocha’s representation that he didn’t know about the motion to

dismiss implies that he didn’t check the docket at all after May 16, when the motion was filed. 

If that is the case, his inaction was unreasonable, bearing in mind that Defendant’s failure

to defend within 21 days after service would result in default, under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(a)(1)(A)(i) and 55(a); and failure to prosecute following such default could result in

dismissal, under Civil Local Rule 55.1. 

The request for judicial notice, apparently, is being offered as an excuse for Mr.

Okorocha’s failure to respond to the motion to dismiss. As such, it is inadequate. Even

accepting that he was “NOT on the notice list of these proceedings,” (along with the

implication that he was not responsible for monitoring this) his claim that he “was not able

to participate thus far in the case” is obviously untrue. Mr. Okorocha is admonished that he

is required to follow this District’s local rules, as well as to monitor the progress of this case.

His own neglect and failure to check the docket for several months does not serve as an

excuse for anything. See, e.g., Villegas v. City of Colton, 2011 WL 3568270, at *3 (C.D.Cal.,

Aug. 9, 2011) (where notice of motion for summary judgment was sent to attorney’s listed

email address, and where counsel failed to check docket for three months even though it

was accessible on internet, failure to oppose motion was inexcusable); Lapico v. Portfolio

Recovery Associates, LLC, 2008 WL 1702187, at *3 (D.Conn, April 11, 2008) (attorney of

record bears responsibility of to monitor docket and respond to motions filed there, and

failure to do so does not constitute excusable neglect).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

- 4 - 11cv2829

Case 3:11-cv-02829-LAB-DHB Document 13 Filed 09/18/12 Page 4 of 5
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 short, the record shows Mr. Okorocha didn’t respond to multiple notices that a

motion to dismiss was pending. And, accepting his representations as true, he must not

have checked the docket for several months. This bespeaks neglect of the case, not inability

to participate. The request for judicial notice is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 18, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN Burns

United States District Judge

- 5 - 11cv2829

Case 3:11-cv-02829-LAB-DHB Document 13 Filed 09/18/12 Page 5 of 5