Adler v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 72

ORDER Denying 71 Motion for Continuance; and Extending Time to File Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment until June 26, 2015 signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 06/05/2015. Opposition due by 6/26/2015.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
15

BRENT ADLER,
Plaintiff,

16
17
18
19
20

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-1915-LJO-MJS (PC)

v.

ORDER:
1) DENYING MOTION FOR
CONTINUANCE (ECF No. 71); AND

F. GONZALEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

2) EXTENDING TIME TO FILE
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNTIL JUNE
26, 2015

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner who initiated this civil rights action pro se and in
forma pauperis on November 17, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff since has been released
from prison and obtained counsel. (ECF Nos. 36 & 51.) His action proceeds against
Defendants on a First Amendment freedom of religion claim. (ECF Nos. 37, 38, 59, 62.)
On April 10, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Hearing on
the motion was set for June 12, 2015. (ECF No. 64.) Plaintiff’s opposition was due May

1

28, 2015. Local Rule 230(c). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. On June 2, 2015, the

2

Court ordered that it would deem the matter submitted on June 12, 2015 unless Plaintiff

3

showed good cause for failing to timely file an opposition. (ECF No. 70).

4

On June 3, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a “Counsel Stipulation to Request a

5

Continuance Date of Motion for Second Summary Judgment.” (ECF No. 71.) It is unclear

6

what is meant by the request to “Continue Date of Motion.” Since the hearing for oral

7

argument is waived, the Court assumes Plaintiff’s counsel is requesting additional time

8

to file an opposition. Hoverer, he presents no good cause, nor any cause whatsoever,

9

for granting a request for continuance or any other relief. The motion for summary

10

judgment has been pending since April 10, 2015. Plaintiff’s opposition was due on May

11

28, 2015. Local Rule 230(c). His request to extend that deadline, if that is what it is, is

12

untimely. See Local Rule 144(d).

13

Were Plaintiff proceeding pro se, such lapses might be excusable. However,

14

Plaintiff has been represented by his attorney since September 2014. (ECF No. 51.)

15

Attorneys have a duty not only to the client but also to the Court to know and follow the

16

rules of procedure. CAL. RULES

17

responsible for their failure to follow them.

OF

PROF’L CONDUCT R. 3-110. They should be held

18

All of the above factors militate in favor of denying the request for additional time

19

(if that is what Plaintiff’s counsel seeks) and ruling on the motion for summary judgment

20

as if it were unopposed. That, however, would likely force the client to bear the adverse

21

consequences of his attorney’s failures. Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff an

22

additional 21 days, i.e., until June 26, 2015, but not beyond, to file an opposition to the

23

motion for summary judgment.

24

I.

25

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:

26

1) The Stipulation, taken as a request for a continuance (ECF No. 71), is

27

ORDER

DENIED;

28
2

1

2) Plaintiff shall file opposition, if any, to the motion for summary judgment (ECF

2

No. 64) not later than June 26, 2015.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 5, 2015

/s/

6

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3