Vickers v. Thompson et al
Filing
73
ORDER Denying 61 Motion for an Extension of Time to File Motion to Compel Discovery as Unnecessary; ORDER Requiring Defendants to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 60 within Thirty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/17/17. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
JEREMIAH D. VICKERS,
Plaintiff,
11
12
13
v.
THOMPSON, et al.,
Defendants.
14
15
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:15-cv-00129-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AS
UNNECESSARY
(ECF No. 61)
ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO
RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
(ECF No. 60)
17
18
Plaintiff Jeremiah D. Vickers (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
19
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have
20
consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 8, 40, 65); Local
21
Rule 302.
22
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, and motion for an
23
extension of time to file the motion to compel discovery, both filed on January 9, 2017. (ECF
24
Nos. 60, 61.)
25
Plaintiff’s motion to compel contains a proof of service stating it was provided to prison
26
officials for mailing on January 3, 2017. (ECF No. 60, p. 116.) Plaintiff filed a motion for an
27
extension of time to file this motion, noting that he had previously been granted a thirty-day
28
extension of time to file the motion to compel on November 29, 2016. Thus, he understood the
1
1
deadline to be January 2, 2017, but he seeks for the motion to be considered as timely for being
2
filed on January 3, 2017. (ECF No. 61.)
3
Defendants oppose the motion for an extension of time, arguing that there are no grounds
4
to allow the deadline to be extended until January 3, 2017, and that the motion should therefore
5
be rejected as untimely and to prevent the needless expenditure of resources. Defendants further
6
request that if they are required to respond to the substance of Plaintiff’s motion to compel, they
7
be granted adequate time to do so.
Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file his motion to compel is denied, as
8
9
unnecessary. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) governs the computation of the relevant time
10
period involved. Under Rule 6 (a) (1) (A) and (B), the first day is excluded from the computation
11
and every day thereafter is included, including Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. Rule 6(d)
12
states: “When a party may or must act within a specified period of time after service and service
13
is made under rule 5(b)(2)(C) (mail) . . . 3 days are added after the period would otherwise
14
expire under Rule 6(a).”
Calculating thirty days from the date of service of the subject order under the rules
15
16
outlined above, the deadline for Plaintiff’s motion to compel fell on January 2, 2017, which was
17
the legal public holiday for New Year’s Day this year. Therefore, because “the last day is a
18
Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is
19
not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C).
Thus, Plaintiff’s motion was due on January 3, 2017, and applying the prison mailbox
20
21
rule, as the Court is required to do here, his motion was timely filed, and his motion for an
22
extension of time is unnecessary.
23
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
24
1.
Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a motion to compel discovery,
25
filed on January 9, 2017 (ECF No. 61), is DENIED, as unnecessary; and
26
///
27
///
28
///
2
2.
1
2
Defendants SHALL file a response to Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed on
January 9, 2017 (ECF No. 60), within thirty days of the date of service of this order.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Dated:
July 17, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?