(PS)Iliya v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 54

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim on 08/27/2024 REJECTING 53 Opposition, VACATING the 09/10/2024 motion hearing, and DIRECTING Plaintiff to file a revised opposition by 09/06/2024. Defendants reply brief due by 09/16/2024. (Murphy, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAUDA ILIYA,

12

Case No. 2:22-cv-1305-KJM-CSK PS
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
On August 22, 2024, Plaintiff Dauda Iliya filed multiple documents in opposition to

17
18

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 1 (ECF No. 53.) The summary judgment

19

motion from Defendants County of Sacramento, Anne Marie Schubert, Scott R. Jones,

20

and Matthew McCune is currently set for a hearing on September 10, 2024. (ECF Nos.

21

49, 50.)
Plaintiff’s opposition briefing exceeds the page limit set by the undersigned’s

22
23

standing orders, which requires that all “motions and oppositions are limited to twenty

24

(20) pages, and replies are limited to ten (10) pages.” 2 The Court grants expansions

25
26
27
28

This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(21).
2 Judge Chi Soo Kim’s Civil Standing Orders are available on Judge Kim’s webpage on
the district court’s website: https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/alljudges/united-states-magistrate-judge-chi-soo-kim-csk/.
1
1

1

beyond these page limits only with good cause and with a request made in writing at

2

least seven (7) days before the filing.

3

Here, Plaintiff filed multiple opposition briefs, including a main brief titled

4

“Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment,” that is 30 pages

5

long (ECF No. 53); a separate brief titled “points and authorities,” that is 4 pages long

6

(ECF No. 53-1); a “statement of undisputed facts” that is 2 pages long (ECF No. 53-2); a

7

document titled “Plaintiff’s exhibits list and exhibits in support of the opposition to

8

defendant’s motion for summary judgment” that is 93 pages long (ECF No. 53-3); and a

9

document titled “Plaintiff’s Exhibits #2 in support of the opposition to defendant’s motion

10

for summary judgment” that is 38 pages long (ECF No. 53-4). Plaintiff did not request

11

permission to exceed the undersigned’s page limits for his briefs (ECF Nos. 53 and

12

53-1), and the Court finds no good cause to expand the 20-page limit. Thus, Plaintiff’s

13

opposition briefs and accompanying documents are REJECTED for failing to follow the

14

Court’s orders. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply

15

with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the

16

Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power

17

of the Court.”); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 183(a) (providing that a pro se party is required to

18

comply with the federal rules, local rules, or other applicable law in the same way as

19

counsel). 3 As a result, the Court also vacates the hearing set for September 10, 2024.

20

The undersigned’s standing order states that “pages that exceed the page limits

21

... filed without prior leave of court will not be considered.” However, given that Plaintiff

22

proceeds without counsel, and in the interests of justice, the Court will provide Plaintiff

23

with another opportunity to submit his opposition brief. Plaintiff shall limit his revised

24

opposition brief to 20 pages, and this revised brief shall be filed on or before

25

To the extent the parties were following the standing orders of the assigned district
judge, Judge Kimberly Mueller’s standing orders also sets a 20-page limit for
oppositions, and requires requests to increase page limits be made in writing at least 14
days before filing and will be granted “[o]nly in rare instances and for good cause
shown.” See https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/alljudges/5020/civil-standing-order/ at Section 4.B.
2

26
27
28

3

1

September 6, 2024. Plaintiff may attach his Statement of Disputed Facts following the

2

requirement of Local Rule 260(b), his response to Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed

3

Facts following the requirement of Local Rule 260(b), and exhibits to his revised

4

opposition brief. No further extensions of this deadline will be allowed. If Plaintiff fails to

5

file a revised opposition brief limited to 20 pages or less on or before September 6,

6

2024, the Court will consider only the first 20 pages of the document titled “Plaintiff’s

7

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment” filed at ECF No. 53 on August

8

22, 2024, Plaintiff’s Statement of Disputed Facts, and Plaintiff’s exhibits.

9

Defendants are permitted until September 16, 2024 to file their optional reply

10

brief. If Plaintiff does not file a revised opposition brief limited to 20 pages or less on or

11

before September 6, Defendants’ optional reply brief must be limited to responding to

12

the first 20 pages of the document titled “Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for

13

Summary Judgment” filed at ECF No. 53 on August 22, 2024, Plaintiff’s Statement of

14

Disputed Facts, and Plaintiff’s exhibits. After the expiration of this deadline, the matter

15

will be submitted on the briefing and written record. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g). If

16

the Court determines that a hearing is necessary, the Court will schedule a hearing.
ORDER

17
18

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

19

1. Plaintiff’s opposition briefs and filings (ECF Nos. 53, 53-1, 53-2, 53-3, and 53-

20
21
22
23

4) are REJECTED for failure to follow the undersigned’s standing orders.
2. The September 10, 2024 hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment is VACATED.
3. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a revised opposition brief that is limited to 20

24

pages on or before September 6, 2024. Plaintiff may attach his Statement of

25

Disputed Facts following the requirement of Local Rule 260(b), his response to

26

Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Facts following the requirement of Local

27

Rule 260(b), and exhibits to his revised opposition brief.

28

4. If Plaintiff fails to file a revised opposition brief that is limited to 20 pages on or
3

1

before September 6, 2024, the Court will only consider the first 20 pages of

2

the document titled “Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary

3

Judgment” filed at ECF No. 53 on August 22, 2024, Plaintiff’s Statement of

4

Disputed Facts, and Plaintiff’s exhibits.

5

5. Defendants may file their optional reply brief until September 16, 2024. If

6

Plaintiff fails to file a revised opposition brief that is limited to 20 pages on or

7

before September 6, 2024, Defendants’ reply brief must be limited to

8

responding to the first 20 pages of the document titled “Plaintiff’s Opposition to

9

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment” filed at ECF No. 53 on August 22,

10
11

2024, Plaintiff’s Statement of Disputed Facts, and Plaintiff’s exhibits.
6. After the expiration of the deadline for Defendants’ optional reply brief,

12

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be submitted on the briefing

13

and written record. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g).

14
15

Dated: August 27, 2024

16
17
18

3, iliy.1305

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4