Sanders #146274 v. Trinity Services Group Incorporated et al

Filing 127

ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion to Enlarge the Time to File a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 126 ) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 125 ) is DENIED. See the attached order for additional information. Signed by Senior Judge James A. Teilborg on 2/16/2021. (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

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 125) and Motion

16

to Enlarge the Time to File a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 126). For the following

17

reasons, the Motion to Enlarge the Time to File is GRANTED and the Motion for

18

Reconsideration is DENIED.

19

I.

BACKGROUND

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

for an additional extension of thirty days. Magistrate Judge Fine’s November 2, 2020 Order

28

granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension, but only granted an extension of eleven days.

1

In all, Magistrate Judge Fine granted extensions of seventy-four days from the initial

2

response deadline of August 31, 2020.

3

Plaintiff objected to Magistrate Judge Fine’s November 2, 2020 Order (Doc. 109)

4

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). On January 26, 2021, the Court denied

5

Plaintiff’s objection and affirmed Magistrate Judge Fine’s Order. (Doc. 124). On February

6

10, 2021, Plaintiff then filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the Court’s January

7

26, 2021 Order. (Doc. 125). Plaintiff filed the motion to enlarge time the following day.

8

(Doc. 126).

9

II.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

LEGAL STANDARD
District of Arizona Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g) governs motions for

reconsideration. It provides:
The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order
absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal
authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with
reasonable diligence. Any such motion shall point out with specificity the
matters that the movant believes were overlooked or misapprehended by the
Court, any new matters being brought to the Court’s attention for the first
time and the reasons they were not presented earlier, and any specific
modifications being sought in the Court’s Order. No motion for
reconsideration of an Order may repeat any oral or written argument made
by the movant in support of or in opposition to the motion that resulted in the
Order. Failure to comply with this subsection may be grounds for denial of
the motion.

21

LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Manifest error under LRCiv 7.2(g)(1) is “error that is plain and

22

indisputable . . . that amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling law or the credible

23

evidence in the record.” Estrada v. Bashas’ Inc., No. CV-02-00591-PHX-RCB, 2014 WL

24

1319189, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 1, 2014) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 622 (9th ed.

25

2009)).

26

Further, mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for

27

reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw.

28

1988). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present

-2-

1

evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the

2

litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).

3

“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare

4

circumstances.” Morgal v. Maricopa Cty. Bd. of Sup’rs, No. CIV 07-0670-PHX-RCB,

5

2012 WL 2368478, at *1 (D. Ariz. June 21, 2012).

6

“Absent good cause shown, any motion for reconsideration shall be filed no later

7

than fourteen (14) days after the date of the filing of the Order that is the subject of the

8

motion.” LRCiv. 7.2(g)(2). The good cause standard primarily considers the diligence of

9

the party filing the untimely motion. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreation, Inc., 975 F.2d

10

604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

11

III.

12
13

ANALYSIS
Because Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was not timely filed, the Court will

first consider his motion to enlarge time.

14

a.

Motion to Enlarge Time

15

Plaintiff filed his motion for reconsideration fifteen days after the Court issued its

16

January 26, 2021 Order. (See Docs. 124, 125). District of Arizona Local Rule of Civil

17

Procedure 7.2(g) sets the time to file a motion for reconsideration at fourteen days. See

18

LRCiv. 7.2(g)(2). Therefore, Plaintiff must show good cause for his late filing to have his

19

motion for reconsideration considered by the Court.

20

In his motion to enlarge time, Plaintiff asserts that he has good cause for filing his

21

motion for reconsideration one day late because, after completing his motion for

22

reconsideration on February 5, 2021, Plaintiff was not given the ability to file his motion

23

for reconsideration until February 10, 2021. (Doc. 126 at 3). Plaintiff further lays out his

24

attempts to file his motion for reconsideration on February 8 and 9, 2021 and the reasons

25

they were unsuccessful. (Id. at 2–3). Because the good cause standard primarily considers

26

the diligence of the party filing the untimely motion, see Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609, the

27

Court finds that Plaintiff has shown diligence and, thus, good cause for his late filing.

28

Because Plaintiff has shown good cause, his motion to enlarge time will be granted and the

-3-

1

Court will consider Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

2

b.

3

In

Motion for Reconsideration
his

motion

for

reconsideration,

Plaintiff

asserts

that

the

Court

4

“misapprehen[ded]” and “disregard[ed]” certain facts when it affirmed Magistrate Judge

5

Fine’s order granting extension. (Doc. 125 at 1). The Court construes this as an argument

6

that, in its January 26, 2021 Order, the Court committed manifest error. Plaintiff further

7

presents “new facts,” arguing that these new facts warrant reconsideration. (Id.). The Court

8

will examine each argument in turn.

9

1.

Manifest Error

10

Plaintiff begins by arguing that it was error for the Court not to consider the three

11

extensions granted to Defendants in this matter when analyzing Plaintiff’s objection. (See

12

id. at 2). Plaintiff originally moved for an extension under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

13

(“FRCP”) 6(b). (Doc. 108 at 1). FRCP 6(b) states that “[w]hen an act may or must be done

14

within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

15

6(b). “The Ninth Circuit has equated the good cause standard with the exercise of due

16

diligence.” Guillen v. Owens, No. CV-10-226-PHX-JWS, 2011 WL 6032861, at *1 (D.

17

Ariz. Dec. 5, 2011). So, the unrelated extensions previously granted in Plaintiff’s case do

18

not impact the Court’s good cause analysis, and Plaintiff cited no law advancing the

19

proposition that they should.

20

The Court further notes that the Defendants’ granted extensions were to extend the

21

deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions. (See Docs. 82, 85, 87). Such extensions

22

benefitted Plaintiff as well as Defendants, even if Plaintiff argues he benefitted less because

23

he submitted his final discovery request early. (See Doc. 125 at 2).

24

Plaintiff was also granted his own extensions totaling seventy-four days to respond

25

to the motion for summary judgment. (See Doc. 124 at 3). Plaintiff argues that he could not

26

take full advantage of these extensions because he is incarcerated and was locked down

27

and in isolation for some of the time. (Doc. 125 at 2–3). The Court clearly included these

28

facts in its analysis and found that they did not warrant overturning Magistrate Judge Fine’s

-4-

1

order. (See Doc. 124 at 3 (“In examining the multiple extensions granted by Magistrate

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

Further, Plaintiff states that he is not asserting that the Court failed to weigh the

8

challenges he faced as an incarcerated plaintiff when analyzing good cause in his objection,

9

but simply that the Court came “to the wrong conclusion given [the facts].” (Doc. 125 at

10

4). As noted above, mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for

11

reconsideration. See Leong, 689 F. Supp. at 1573.

12

Finally, Plaintiff seems to assert that the Court’s denial of his objection will lead to

13

a default judgment against him on the motions for summary judgment. (See Doc. 125 at 4).

14

However, the Court has made no default judgment order, nor would it here, as the Ninth

15

Circuit “prohibit[s] the grant of summary judgment ‘by default even if there is a complete

16

failure to respond to the motion.’” Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 917 (9th Cir.

17

2013); see also Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1182–83 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that

18

a district court may not grant a motion for summary judgment by default because a party

19

failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment). Instead, the Court ordered that the

20

motions for summary judgment will simply be considered, on the merits, as unopposed.

21

(Doc. 124 at 5).

22

Thus, Plaintiff has failed to make a showing of manifest error, or “error that is plain

23

and indisputable . . . that amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling law or the

24

credible evidence in the record.” Estrada, 2014 WL 1319189, at *1.

25

2.

New Facts

26

Plaintiff presents “new facts” in his motion for reconsideration that he argues were

27

not presented in his original objection because they were not “relevant.” (Doc. 125 at 5–

28

6). Plaintiff argues they are now relevant in light of the Court’s January 26, 2021 Order.

-5-

1

(Id.). These new facts outline the challenges Plaintiff faced in filing his response and

2

related statements of facts as a prisoner plaintiff. (See id. at 6–8). Nowhere in these new

3

facts, however, does Plaintiff allege that these challenges prevented him from meeting the

4

November 13, 2020 deadline set in Magistrate Judge Fine’s order. (See id.). Instead,

5

Plaintiff argues that these new facts show that he could have met the deadline had his

6

requested thirty-day extension been granted. (Id.). Because Magistrate Judge Fine did not

7

err in failing to grant the full additional time requested by Plaintiff, facts about delays that

8

occurred after the November 13, 2020 deadline are not relevant to the Court’s analysis.1

9

Plaintiff additionally argues that his new facts are relevant because his response and

10

statements of facts were “filed and not merely lodged on the record” which Plaintiff asserts

11

“does not occur until and/or unless the Court has deemed them procedurally acceptable.”

12

(Doc. 125 at 5). Plaintiff goes on to state that Magistrate Judge Fine’s December 10, 2020

13

Order led him to “infer[] that he would be procedurally okay if he met [the deadline to file

14

statements of facts].” (Id.).

15

“It is well established that district courts have inherent power to control their

16

docket.” Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Hercules, Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir.

17

1998) (internal quotations and alterations omitted) (citing Hernandez v. City of El Monte,

18

138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th Cir. 1998)). “This includes the power to strike items from the docket

19

as a sanction for litigation conduct.” Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402,

20

404 (9th Cir. 2010). Because Plaintiff filed his response and statements of facts late, the

21

Court was well within its power to strike them from the record. Further, Magistrate Judge

22

Fine’s December 10, 2020 order did not find that Plaintiff’s response was timely. (See Doc.

23

115). It instead noted that Plaintiff’s appeal to this Court as to the deadline for his response

24

was “pending,” indicating that the timeliness of Plaintiff’s response would depend on

25

whether the Court affirmed the deadline set by Magistrate Judge Fine. (See id. at 2).

26

1

27
28

Plaintiff argues that these facts are relevant because the Court noted that “even if Plaintiff
had received the full thirty-day (30) extension requested in his October 29, 2020 motion,
Plaintiff’s response would have still been filed late.” (Doc. 124 at 4–5). Plaintiff, however,
did not receive the full thirty-day extension requested, so challenges in meeting a deadline
based upon that denied extension would not impact the Court’s analysis of Plaintiff’s
objection.
-6-

1

Regardless, Magistrate Judge Fine’s December 10, 2020 Order, which Plaintiff claims

2

caused him confusion on this point, did not retroactively make Plaintiff’s late response

3

timely.

4

Thus, Plaintiff’s new facts would not have been relevant to the Court’s analysis of

5

his objection. As such, Plaintiff’s new facts do not warrant that his motion for

6

reconsideration be granted.

7

IV.

CONCLUSION

8

Plaintiff succeeding in showing good cause for the late filing of his motion for

9

reconsideration. Plaintiff has, however, failed to show that the Court committed manifest

10

error in its January 26, 2021 Order or that new facts that could not have been brought to its

11

attention earlier with reasonable diligence warrant reconsideration. Accordingly,

12
13
14
15
16

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Enlarge the Time to File a Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 126) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc.
125) is DENIED.
Dated this 16th day of February, 2021.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-7-