Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01126/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01126-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEREMY STEPHENS, et al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., )

)

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:05cv1126 DLB

ORDER PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RELIEF

(Document 48)

Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for relief from failing to file a timely opposition on

January 26, 2007. The matter was heard on March 2, 2007, before the Honorable Dennis L.

Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Marty Smith appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Dan Farrar

appeared on behalf of Defendants.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Jeremy Stephens, a minor, by and through his guardian Dorothy Shockley,

Dorothy Shockley, Tisha Pleake, Jacob Stephens and Timothy Stephens, Jr., (collectively

“Plaintiffs”), filed the instant civil rights action on September 1, 2005. Plaintiffs, all relatives of

the decedent Timothy Stevens, allege violations of decedent’s Eighth Amendment rights and

negligence against Defendant Stanislaus County Sheriff and Deputy Sheriff (“Defendants”). 

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages.

Defendants answered the complaint on October 24, 2005. 

Case 1:05-cv-01126-DLB Document 56 Filed 03/05/07 Page 1 of 3
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

 On December 21, 2006, the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii reassigned this case to the undersigned for all 1

purposes, pursuant to the parties’ consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge.

 Plaintiffs followed the timing set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), rather than the applicable 2

motion schedule set forth in Local Rules 78-230 and 56-260.

2

On December 15, 2006, Defendants filed the their instant motion for summary judgment.1

After filing a late opposition , the Court vacated the January 19, 2007, hearing date and allowed 2

Plaintiffs to move for relief from their untimely opposition prior to ruling on the motion.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) on

January 26, 2007, along with supporting declarations. Defendant opposed the motion on

February 7, 2007. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs bring their motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b), arguing that their failure to

respond was a result of mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect. Rule 60(b), however, applies

only to final judgments, orders or proceedings. 

Most courts that review the failure to file an opposition, though, do so in the context of a

dispositive motion and apply a general excusable neglect standard. The courts also examine why

the party failed to follow the applicable Local Rule, i.e., Local Rules covering electronic filing

and motion practice. See Fox v. American Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (failure

to respond to motion to dismiss was not excused by alleged failure of district court's electronic

case filing system to send counsel e-mail notifying him of filing of motion to dismiss, given

counsel's continuing obligation to monitor court docket for filings); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d

52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (upholding district court’s dismissal of action based on pro se

plaintiff’s failure to respond to motion to dismiss, where the record indicates that he received

notice and had ample time to respond).

Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel John Bell explains that the paralegal assigned to the case, Raul

Gonzalez, Jr., failed to retrieve and calendar the relevant local rules, and further failed to

calendar the opposition due date correctly. Mr. Bell was assured three times that Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 56(c) was the correct standard regarding oppositions to summary judgment. Mr.

Case 1:05-cv-01126-DLB Document 56 Filed 03/05/07 Page 2 of 3
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

Bell also states that a clerical mistake by a court reporter resulted in a delay in obtaining

transcripts for purposes of the opposition. Defense counsel declined to stipulate to a two week

extension because of the Scheduling Conference Order, which set January 19, 2007 as the last

day to hear dispositive motions. 

Mr. Bell takes full responsibility for the error, but contends that Plaintiffs have a

meritorious defense and that they should not be penalized based on the failures of his law office. 

Mr. Gonzales submits a declaration supporting Mr. Bell’s statements, and explaining that his

error was based on a good faith reading of Rule 56(c). 

Whether the Court applies the excusable neglect standard or good cause standard, the

result is the same- Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief from their failure to file a timely opposition. 

While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) allows “opposing affidavits” to be filed the day

prior to the hearing, Local Rule 78-230(c) requires that oppositions be filed not less than 14 days

prior to the hearing date. Mr. Bell is an experienced attorney who has undoubtedly practiced

before a court with a similar rule, as courts without such a rule are few in number. Although he

asked Mr. Gonzalez about proper timing numerous times, there is no excuse for failing to take

the time to look for the applicable rule where doubt existed. This is especially true given Mr.

Gonzalez’ history in this case. In October 2006, Plaintiffs had to move to modify the scheduling

order based on Mr. Gonzalez’ failure to properly calendar deadlines. 

Moreover, the Scheduling Conference Order states, at page 5:

All dispositive pre-trial motions shall be filed no later than December 15, 2006, and heard

no later than January 19, 2007, in Courtroom 9 before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck,

United States Magistrate Judge. In scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with

Local Rules 78-230 and 56-260. (emphasis in original).

Plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure to file a timely opposition is simply inexcusable and certainly

cannot be characterized as either excusable neglect or good caus. Plaintiffs’ motion for relief is

therefore DENIED. The Court will proceed to the merits of Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 5, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01126-DLB Document 56 Filed 03/05/07 Page 3 of 3