Jaimes v. Barnes et al

Filing 57

ORDER GRANTING Defendant Barnes' 54 Request to Accept Reply Nunc Pro Tunc signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 5/5/2016. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JUAN JAIMES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
DR. ROBERT J. BARNES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT BARNES’
REQUEST TO ACCEPT REPLY NUNC PRO
TUNC
[ECF No. 54]

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Defendant Barnes’ request to accept his reply to Plaintiff’s

19
20

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00952-LJO-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff Juan Jaimes is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

opposition to the motion for summary judgment nunc pro tunc.
On September 21, 2015, Defendants moved for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure

21
22

to exhaust the administrative remedies. After receiving several extensions of time, Plaintiff filed an

23

opposition to Defendants’ motion on April 18, 2016. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), Defendant had

24

until April 25, 2016, to file a reply.
Defense counsel submits that he was unable to file a reply brief due to personal family matters

25
26

that required him to be unavailable from April 21 through April 29, 2016.

27

///

28
1

1

Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[w]hen an act … must be done

2

within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . on motion made after the

3

time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1).

4

Whether “excusable neglect” will lie requires consideration of four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice

5

to the non-moving party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings;

6

(3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant; and

7

(4) whether the moving party’s conduct was in good faith. Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v. Brunswick

8

Assocs. Ltd. P’Ship, 507 U.S. 380, 394 (1993). Before Pioneer, the term “excusable neglect” was

9

commonly understood to cover only situations beyond an attorney’s control, not negligence on the part

10

of counsel. Under Pioneer, “excusable neglect” covers “situations in which the failure to comply with

11

a filing deadline is attributable to negligence.” Id. at 395.
In this instance, the four factors of Pioneer weigh in Defendant’s favor as Plaintiff will not

12
13

suffer prejudice by the acceptance of Defendant’s late reply, the reply was filed shortly after the

14

deadline, the failure to file a timely reply was based on counsel’s unfortunate personal circumstances,

15

and the record is devoid of any indication that defense counsel acted in bad faith. Accordingly, the

16

Court will accept Defendant’s reply nunc pro tunc to April 21, 2016.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated:

20

May 5, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2