Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00066/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00066-16/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEX LAMONA MARTI,

Plaintiff,

v.

F. PADILLA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-GSA PC

ORDER ADDRESSING OPPOSITION TO

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, AND

DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

(Docs. 70 and 71)

Plaintiff Alex Lamona Marti (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court are

Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ request for an extension of time and Plaintiff’s motion for

sanctions, filed November 19, 2008. The Court deems it unnecessary for Defendants to file a

response to either filing.

On October 2, 2008, the Court ordered Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion

to strike their answer. Defendants’ response was due on November 6, 2008. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. On

November 10, 2008, Defendants filed a request for an extension of time, which was granted by the

Court in an order filed on November 14, 2008.

Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ request for an extension of time on the ground that it was not

filed prior to the expiration of the deadline Defendants sought to extend. Plaintiff contends that

Defendants are in violation of the Court’s order and Local Rule 6-144. Plaintiff also seeks the

imposition of sanctions, up to and including the entry of default, pursuant to Local Rule 11-110, 

///

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM Document 73 Filed 11/21/08 Page 1 of 2
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

which provides that the Court may impose sanctions authorized by Statute, Rule, or its inherent

power for the failure to obey court orders or the Local Rules. 

Plaintiff is correct that Defendants should have filed their request for an extension of time

on or before November 6, 2008. However, the late filing caused no prejudice to Plaintiff and did not

result in any unnecessary expenditure of resources by the Court given that the Court took no action

on the pending matter between the expiration of the deadline and the receipt of the tardy request for

an extension of time. Plaintiff’s objection is noted, but the Court has already ruled on the request

and there are no grounds that warrant setting aside the order granting the extension of time.

With respect to sanctions, it is well established that the imposition of sanctions under the

inherent authority of the Court requires a finding of conduct that “constituted or was tantamount to

bad faith,” which “sets a high threshold.” Mendez v. County of San Bernardino, 540 F.3d 1109,

1131-32 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The filing of an untimely

request for an extension of time is not bad faith conduct, and Plaintiff’s motion presents no basis for

the imposition of sanctions

For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s objection to Defendants’ request for an extension

of time is noted but the Court declines to reconsider its decision to grant the extension, and

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 21, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM Document 73 Filed 11/21/08 Page 2 of 2