Williams #124345 v. Winget

Filing 97

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff's "Request for Excuse of Untimeliness" (Doc. 95 ) and Motion for Final Judgment Determination (Doc. 96 ). The "Request for Excuse of U ntimeliness" (Doc. 95 ) is granted to the extent Plaintiff seeks an extension of the deadline to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment. All other portions of the "Request for Excuse of Untimeliness" (Doc. 95 ) are denied. Plai ntiff must file his response to the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 74 ) withing thirty (30) days of the date this Order is issued. The Motion for Final Judgment Determination (Doc. 96 ) is denied. See document for complete details. Signed by Judge Michael T Liburdi on 06/03/2021. (MHW)

1

WO

SH

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

DaJuan Torrell Williams,

10
11
12
13

No. CV 19-05096-PHX-MTL (CDB)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

Unknown Winget, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff DaJuan Torrell Williams, who is currently confined in the Yuma County

16

Detention Center in Yuma, Arizona, brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

17

§ 1983. (Doc. 16.) On screening Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 16) under 28

18

U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court determined that Plaintiff stated Eighth Amendment excessive

19

force claims against Defendants Winget, Tribolet, Verdugo, Valencia, Villanueva,

20

Cornejo, and Lopez and directed them to answer. (Doc. 17.) The Court dismissed the

21

remaining claims and Defendants. (Id.)

22

On September 30, 2020, Plaintiff sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint,

23

and the Court denied the motion on February 26, 2021. (Docs. 52, 55, 72.) The Court also

24

dismissed Defendants Winget, Verdugo, Valencia, and Cornejo for failure to serve

25

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Doc. 72.)

26

On March 1, 2021, Defendants Lopez, Tribolet, and Villanueva filed the pending

27

Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to respond. (Docs.

28

74, 77.) On March 30, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for a deadline extension

1

and gave Plaintiff until April 30, 2021 to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment.

2

(Docs. 81, 83.)

3

On May 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Extraordinary Circumstances and

4

Excusable Neglect” (Doc. 94) in which he asserts that he did not have access to the law

5

library or to his legal property between April 9, 2021 and May 10, 2021 and was therefore

6

unable to file a timely response to the Motion for Summary Judgment or to file “objections”

7

to the Magistrate Judge’s March 30, 2021 denial (Doc. 82) of his Motion to Compel (Doc.

8

78).

9

On May 28, 2021, Plaintiff filed a “Request for Excuse of Untimeliness” and a

10

Motion for Final Judgment Determination. (Docs. 95, 96.) In his “Request for Excuse of

11

Untimeliness,” Plaintiff seeks an additional 30 days to file a response to the Motion for

12

Summary Judgment and to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his Motion

13

to Compel. (Doc. 95.) To the extent Plaintiff requests additional time to file objections to

14

the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his Motion to Compel, Plaintiff’s request will be denied.

15

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel was fully briefed, including a response from Defendants and

16

a reply from Plaintiff. (Docs. 79, 80.) Thus, Plaintiff was given a full opportunity to

17

present his arguments regarding the Motion to Compel, and the Court finds no basis to

18

reopen arguments on that issue. However, there being good cause, the Court will grant

19

Plaintiff’s request for an additional 30 days to respond to the Motion for Summary

20

Judgment.

21

In his Motion for Final Judgment Determination, brought pursuant to Federal Rule

22

of Civil Procedure 54(b), Plaintiff asks the Court to enter final judgment regarding its

23

February 26, 2021 Order denying leave to file a Second Amended Complaint and

24

dismissing Defendants Winget, Verdugo, Valencia, and Cornejo for failure to serve. (Doc.

25

96.) Under Rule 54(b), “[w]hen an action presents more than one claim for relief . . . or

26

when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of final judgment as to one

27

or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court determines there is no just

28

reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Rule 54(b) “was adopted ‘specifically to avoid

-2-

1

the possible injustice of delay[ing] judgment o[n] a distinctly separate claim [pending]

2

adjudication of the entire case . . . . The Rule thus aimed to augment, not diminish, appeal

3

opportunity.’” Jewel v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 810 F.3d 622, 628 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting

4

Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., 574 U.S. 405, 409 (2015)). Plaintiff argues that “there is

5

no just reason for delay of Plaintiff seeking relief before the court of appeals” because the

6

February 26, 2021 Order “effectively results in dismissals with prejudice of Plaintiff’s

7

claims and defendants[.]” (Doc. 96 at 1.)

8

The factual issues underlying the claims against Defendants Winget, Verdugo,

9

Valencia, and Cornejo significantly overlap with the factual issues underlying the claims

10

against the remaining Defendants, rendering piecemeal appeals highly probable. See

11

Jewel, 810 F.3d at 628 (district court should not certify judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) if

12

there is likelihood of piecemeal appeals). For the same reason, the Court cannot find there

13

is no just reason for delay as the “interlocking factual relationship of the various counts

14

leading to the likelihood that a subsequent appeal would again seek review of the issues

15

presented here . . . suggests that it [would not be] in the interests of sound judicial

16

administration for the district court to certify this judgment as final.” Id. at 630 (citation

17

omitted). In short, all of the claims in this action are premised on intermingled facts raising

18

concerns about piecemeal appeals, and, as a result, Plaintiff has not shown that there is no

19

just reason for delay. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Final

20

Judgment Determination.

21

IT IS ORDERED:

22

(1)

The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff’s “Request

23

for Excuse of Untimeliness” (Doc. 95) and Motion for Final Judgment Determination (Doc.

24

96).

25

(2)

The “Request for Excuse of Untimeliness” (Doc. 95) is granted to the extent

26

Plaintiff seeks an extension of the deadline to respond to the Motion for Summary

27

Judgment. All other portions of the “Request for Excuse of Untimeliness” (Doc. 95) are

28

denied.

-3-

1
2

(3)

Plaintiff must file his response to the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.

74) withing thirty (30) days of the date this Order is issued.

3

(4)

4

Dated this 3rd day of June, 2021.

The Motion for Final Judgment Determination (Doc. 96) is denied.

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-