Ransom v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 79

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 75 Motion to Strike, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 07/25/14. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

LEONARD RANSOM, JR.,

11

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO STRIKE
(Doc. 75.)

Plaintiff,

12
13

1:10-cv-00397-AWI-GSA-PC

vs.
DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

I.

BACKGROUND

17

Leonard Ransom, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on

19

March 8, 2010. (Doc. 1.) This case is presently in the discovery phase.
On July 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s

20
21

motion to compel as untimely. (Doc. 75.)

22

II.

23
24
25
26
27
28

CIVIL MOTIONS IN PRISONER CASES -- LOCAL RULE 230(l)
Local Rule 230(l), which governs the civil motions calendar in prisoner cases such as

Plaintiff’s, provides in part:
Motions in Prisoner Actions. “All motions, except motions to dismiss for lack
of prosecution, filed in actions wherein one party is incarcerated and proceeding
in propria persona, shall be submitted upon the record without oral argument
unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Such motions need not be noticed on the
motion calendar. Opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be served
and filed by the responding party not more than twenty-one (21) days after the
date of service of the motion.”
1

1

Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel should be

2

stricken from the record because it was untimely under the twenty-one-day deadline established

3

by Rule 230(l). First, Plaintiff argues that Defendants failed to respond timely to his motion to

4

compel because he did not receive Defendants’ opposition until July 2, 2014. Second, Plaintiff

5

argues that Defendants failed to file their opposition timely under Rule 230(l) because the

6

deadline to file the opposition, given that service was made by mail, was June 25, 2014, and

7

Defendants did not file their opposition until June 26, 2014.

8
9
10

Plaintiff is mistaken. First, the twenty-one day deadline is for the responding party to
serve and file their opposition, not for Plaintiff to receive the opposition. Therefore, the fact
that Plaintiff received the opposition on July 2, 2014 is not relevant.
Second, Defendants’ deadline to file the opposition under Rule 230(l) was June 26,

11
12

2014, not June 25, 2014. Plaintiff served his motion to compel on June 2, 2014. (Doc. 72 at

13

65.) Defendants had twenty-one days after the date of service of the motion to file their

14

opposition. L.R. 230(l). Twenty-one days after June 2, 2014 is June 23, 2014. Pursuant to

15

Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, AWhen a party may or just act within a

16

specified time after service and service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F), 3 days

17

are added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a). Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Three

18

days after June 23, 2014 is June 26, 2014. Thus, Defendants’ opposition, filed on June 26,

19

2014, was timely under Rule 230(l). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to strike shall be denied.

20

III.

21
22

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s

motion to strike, filed on July 16, 2014, is DENIED.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 25, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2