Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00624/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00624-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth Augustine
Plaintiff
Marin County
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH AUGUSTINE,

Plaintiff,

v

MARIN COUNTY,

Defendant. /

No C-04-0624 VRW

ORDER

Plaintiff failed to oppose defendant’s motion for summary

judgment (Doc #20) in a timely fashion, and the court ordered

plaintiff to show cause (Doc #22) why defendant’s motion should not

be treated as unopposed. Plaintiff has responded to the order to

show cause. Doc #24. Liberally construing plaintiff’s response,

the court detects several discrete arguments interwoven throughout

the response. The court addresses them seriatim.

Plaintiff asserts that his failure to respond in a timely

fashion was due to time pressure:

I was not served the defendant’s motions until

March 17, 2005 * * *. I am not an attorney and

it seems extremely short notice to be expected

Case 3:04-cv-00624-VRW Document 25 Filed 04/21/05 Page 1 of 5
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

to reply in the two weeks before the March 31,

2005, hearing * * *. I am not yet finished and

thought I had until the April 21, 2005 date as

noticed on the defendant’s documents.

Pl Resp (Doc #24) at 1:19-26. This evidences an utter ignorance of

the rules of procedure in this court, an ignorance to which no one

-- pro se or counseled -- is entitled. All parties in this court

must comply with the court’s rules. See King v Atiyeh, 814 F2d

565, 567 (9th Cir 1987) (noting that “[p]laintiff should be aware

that although he is * * * representing himself in this action, he

is nevertheless obligated to follow the same rules as represented

parties”). See also Civ L R 3-9(a) (“A person representing him or

herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules, as well

as by all applicable local rules. Sanctions (including default or

dismissal) may be imposed for failure to comply with local

rules.”). Plaintiff states, “I am not an attorney. I should not

be held to the same standard as an attorney * * *.” Pl Resp (Doc

#24) at 5:10. But the rules say otherwise: Plaintiff is, and will

continue to be, held to the same standard as an attorney.

In fact, plaintiff’s failure to oppose in a timely

fashion cannot even be explained by ignorance of the rules, for the

court’s scheduling order of January 19, 2005, explicitly stated

that “[p]laintiff’s opposition is due on or before March 31, 2005.” 

Doc #19 at 1:26. In any event, to clear up, perhaps, some of

plaintiff’s confusion: The April 21, 2005, date was a hearing

date. As provided in Civ L R 7-2(a), motions must be filed not

less than 35 days before the hearing date. March 17, 2005, was 35

days before April 21, 2005. Under Civ L R 7-3(a), an opposition to

a motion is then due 21 days before the hearing date -- in this

Case 3:04-cv-00624-VRW Document 25 Filed 04/21/05 Page 2 of 5
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

case, March 31, 2005. Even passing familiarity with the local

rules would have apprised plaintiff of this system. The court

admonishes plaintiff to obtain copies of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Civil Local Rules for the Northern District of

California. The court will not excuse any further noncompliance

with applicable rules of procedure.

Plaintiff also contends that he has been unable to enter

the courthouse building because he “decline[s] to obtain either a

driver’s license or identification card from any state agency.” Pl

Resp (Doc #24) at 2:3. The court recognizes the 

“fundamental [constitutional] right of access to the courts.” 

Tennessee v Lane, 124 S Ct 1978, 1994 (2004). It would be

troubling indeed to prevent plaintiff from attending hearings in

this matter simply because he lacks a government-issued

identification card. But this is irrelevant to the question

whether plaintiff is able to serve and file timely opposition

papers, something that can be accomplished by using the mails. 

See, e g, FRCP 5(b)(2)(B) (permitting service of papers by mail);

Civ L R 5-1(a) (describing procedure for filing original document

with the clerk of court). Moreover, the court is unaware of any

hearing or other proceeding in this case that plaintiff has been

unable to attend. (Plaintiff represents that he desires to attend

e-filing training, Doc #24 at 2:9-10, and oral arguments in other

cases, id at 2:6-8, but neither of these concern matters over which

the undersigned has jurisdiction by virtue of this case, which is

not designated for e-filing and in which there has been no oral

argument.) Should plaintiff need to attend an in-court hearing in

this matter in the future, he may apply to the court for an order

Case 3:04-cv-00624-VRW Document 25 Filed 04/21/05 Page 3 of 5
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

4

directing the Marshal to allow him to enter the building.

Plaintiff also discusses his inability to obtain certain

records he believes will be relevant to this case. Although

plaintiff’s filing does not satisfy the procedural requirements of

FRCP 56(f), he does appear to advance a Rule 56(f)-like argument

that he should be permitted additional time to gather evidence to

oppose defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The court will

consider this argument in deciding whether to entertain or continue

defendant’s summary judgment motion. For present purposes,

however, the issue is beside the point; plaintiff could have timely

come forward with a Rule 56(f) affidavit. His lack of evidence

does not excuse his failure to file a timely opposition.

Plaintiff also asks the court to “allow [him] sufficient

time to acquire assistance in the prosecution of this matter.” Pl

Resp (Doc #24) at 6:28. This may refer to plaintiff’s Rule 56(f)-

like argument described in the preceding paragraph. Or it may

refer to plaintiff’s interest in obtaining representation. This,

again, does nothing to explain why plaintiff was unable to file a

timely opposition. Moreover, the court declines plaintiff’s

invitation to put this case on hold. Plaintiff has filed a

lawsuit; he must now prosecute it.

Finally, plaintiff offers argument on the merits of

defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Having found no ground on

which to discharge the order to show cause, the court could in its

discretion decline to consider this material. Nonetheless, in

light of the strong policy favoring resolution of disputes on the

merits, the court will consider plaintiff’s submission in ruling on

defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff will not,

Case 3:04-cv-00624-VRW Document 25 Filed 04/21/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

however, be permitted to file further papers in opposition to

defendant’s motion.

* * *

Accordingly, the order to show cause (Doc #22) is

DISCHARGED to the extent that the court will consider plaintiff’s

response (Doc #24) in ruling on defendant’s motion for summary

judgment (Doc #20). Defendant may file a reply by April 29, 2005,

upon which the matter will be deemed submitted and the court will

issue a written decision without a hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00624-VRW Document 25 Filed 04/21/05 Page 5 of 5