Sanders #146274 v. Trinity Services Group Incorporated et al

Filing 124

ORDER IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objection (Doc. 110 ) is OVERRULED and the Magistrate Judge's order (Doc. 109 ) is AFFIRMED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Plaintiff's late Responses and Statements of Facts (Docs. 113 , 116 , 117 ), Defendants' Replies to the late Responses (Docs. 121 , 123 ), and Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's late Statements of Facts (Doc. 122 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. 95 , 100 ) will be considered as unopposed. See the attached order for additional information. Signed by Senior Judge James A. Teilborg on 1/26/2021. (RMW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Michael Martin Sanders,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-18-01471-PHX-JAT (DMF)

Trinity Services Group Incorporated, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Michael M. Sanders’ (“Plaintiff”) Objection

16

(Doc. 110) to a pretrial order of Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine (Doc. 109). The Court

17

now rules on the Objection (Doc. 110).

18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Trinity Services Incorporated, et al.

20

(“Defendants”) alleging that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights

21

(Doc. 1). Specifically, Plaintiff claims that his Eight Amendment rights were violated when

22

he was not granted an exception to the prison’s mechanical restraint policy and was given

23

a nutritionally deficient diet while incarcerated. (See Doc. 1 at 4–12). To date, Magistrate

24

Judge Fine has granted two extensions for Plaintiff to respond to the Motions for Summary

25

Judgment (Docs. 107, 109). In his October 29, 2020 motion, Plaintiff asked for an

26

additional extension of thirty (30) days. Magistrate Judge Fine’s November 2, 2020 Order

27

granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension, but only granted an extension of eleven (11)

28

days. In all, Magistrate Judge Fine has granted extensions of seventy-four (74) days from

1

the initial response deadline of August 31, 2020.
Plaintiff seeks relief from Magistrate Judge Fine’s November 2, 2020 Order (Doc.

2
3

109) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).

4

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

5

This Court may modify or set aside any part of a pretrial order issued by a magistrate

6

judge that “is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ.

7

P. 72(a). The Court will overturn a magistrate judge’s decision only if it is the result of

8

“clear error.” Maisonville v. F2 Am., Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 747 (9th Cir. 1990) (citations

9

omitted). Under this standard of review, the Court “may not simply substitute its judgment

10

for that of the deciding court.” Grimes v. City & County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236,

11

241 (9th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). Instead, the Court must have a “definite and firm

12

conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242

13

(2001) (citation omitted). The burden of making this showing is on the objecting party. See

14

Kinkeade v. Beard, No. 215CV01375TLNCDK, 2017 WL 2813037, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June

15

29, 2017).

16

III.

ANALYSIS

17

Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge’s order (Doc. 109) erred in two ways:

18

By not considering Plaintiff’s good cause showings, and by not considering that Plaintiff

19

must respond to multiple motions for summary judgment. (Doc. 110 at 2–4). The Court

20

will address each contention in turn.
Plaintiff’s Good Cause Showings

21

a.

22

While it is not clear from Plaintiff’s Objection, Plaintiff’s primary argument appears

23

to be that Magistrate Judge Fine erred by not fully considering all of the circumstances

24

underlying Plaintiff’s multiple requests for extensions and only granting Plaintiff an

25

additional eleven-day (11) extension rather than the requested thirty-day (30) extension.

26

(See Doc. 110 at 2–5). Plaintiff asserts that the extension granted by Magistrate Judge Fine

27

fails to take into account the fourteen (14) days Plaintiff lost to a COVID-19 lockdown in

28

his unit (Doc. 105 at 4) and the twenty-one (21) days Plaintiff lost to “medical isolation”

-2-

1

(Doc. 105 at 2-3) for a total of thirty-five (35) lost days (Doc. 110 at 4). Essentially,

2

Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Fine has not granted sufficient relief to address the

3

litany of issues he has encountered when drafting his responses to the two motions for

4

summary judgment and statements of facts (Docs. 95, 96, 100, and 101).

5

To date, Magistrate Judge Fine has granted a total extension of seventy-four (74)

6

days from the original deadline of August 31, 2020 to the extended deadline of November

7

13, 2020. (See Docs. 107, 109). In examining the multiple extensions granted by Magistrate

8

Judge Fine, the Court does not see any evidence she erroneously neglected to consider the

9

thirty-five (35) days mentioned in Plaintiff’s Objection. When added to the days in August

10

Plaintiff was not locked down (August 14–31, 2020) (Doc. 105 at 4), the total number of

11

days granted to draft a response to the motions for summary judgment and new statements

12

of fact far exceeds the thirty-day (30) time limit given in the original order (Doc. 102).

13

Moreover, Magistrate Judge Fine granted an additional eleven-day (11) extension to

14

Plaintiff even though, “[p]laintiff ha[d] not shown diligence or good cause for another

15

extension.” (Doc. 109). After reviewing the totality of the record, Magistrate Judge Fine

16

did not err in granting an additional eleven-day (11) extension, rather than the requested

17

thirty-day (30) extension, and the extensions granted far exceed the thirty-five-days (35)

18

Plaintiff claims to have lost.

19

b.

20

Plaintiff also seems to argue that the Magistrate Judge engaged in an “abuse of

21

discretion” by not allowing additional response time for Plaintiff to complete separate

22

responses to the two pending motions for summary judgment. (Doc. 110 at 4). Plaintiff

23

argues that “the Magistrate Judge has not considered that Sanders is laboring to perfect two

24

responses to two motions for summary judgment.” (Id. at 4) (emphasis omitted). It should

25

be noted that Magistrate Judge Fine’s orders specifically mention that both motions for

26

summary judgment are pending, so it appears to the Court that Magistrate Judge Fine did

27

consider that Plaintiff needed to respond to both. (See Docs. 107, 109). Even if Magistrate

28

Judge Fine did not consider that Plaintiff had to submit responses to two motions for

Responses to Multiple Motions for Summary Judgment

-3-

1

summary judgment, it would still not amount to clear error. Although the Court

2

acknowledges the challenges Plaintiff has encountered as an incarcerated, pro se litigant,

3

responding to multiple motions for summary judgment does not rise to the level of good

4

cause for an extension as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A). See

5

Ashby v. Mortimer, No. 4:18-cv-00143-DCN, 2019 WL 1804440, at *2 (D. Idaho Apr. 24,

6

2019) (“[T]he fact that Plaintiffs must respond to two motions for summary judgment filed

7

days apart is hardly unique, inherent in litigation, and may not rise to the level of good

8

cause.”). Since answering two motions for summary judgment is an inherent aspect of

9

litigation—particularly in cases like this one where the Plaintiff has brought claims against

10

multiple defendants—Plaintiff is not entitled to an additional extension because he must

11

prepare two responses.

12

Further, Plaintiff asserts that his lack of “access to the modern tools of litigation”

13

due to his incarceration favors granting an additional extension. (Doc. 110 at 5). Plaintiff,

14

however, cites no legal precedent to support this argument. (See id.). The Supreme Court

15

has established the standard for legal research access that prison authorities must give to

16

prisoners as, “the (already well-established) right of access to the courts.” Lewis v. Casey,

17

518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996). Circuit courts have interpreted this standard as requiring a

18

plaintiff to show actual restriction of access to the court system (“actual injury”). See

19

Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375, 1383–87 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that reduced library

20

time and limited legal resources in library did not restrict Plaintiff’s access to the courts);

21

see also Sowell v. Vose, 941 F.2d 32, 35 (1st Cir. 1991) (finding that a delay of access to

22

legal materials that forced Plaintiff to obtain deadline extensions did not deny Plaintiff

23

access to the courts). Plaintiff has not been prevented from filing his claim or multiple

24

motions for extensions of response deadlines. (See Docs. 1, 105, 108). While legal

25

resources available to Plaintiff may not be ideal, the record does not support a finding that

26

Plaintiff has been deprived of his right of access to the courts.

27

Finally, the Court notes that even if Plaintiff had received the full thirty-day (30)

28

extension requested in his October 29, 2020 motion, Plaintiff’s response would have still

-4-

1

been filed late.

2

IV.

CONCLUSION

3

Based on the foregoing,

4

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. 110) is OVERRULED and the

5

Magistrate Judge’s order (Doc. 109) is AFFIRMED.

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Plaintiff’s late Responses and Statements

7

of Facts (Docs. 113, 116, 117), Defendants’ Replies to the late Responses (Docs. 121, 123),

8

and Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s late Statements of Facts (Doc. 122).

9
10
11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. 95,
100) will be considered as unopposed.
Dated this 26th day of January, 2021.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-5-