Miller v. Heil et al
Filing
109
ORDER Overruling Objection. ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objection to U.S. Magistrates Granting of Defendants Motion for Extension of Time filed June 23, 2011 75 is OVERRULED, and the Minute Order of June 13, 2011 65 is AFFIRMED by Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 10/13/11. (jjh, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02913-WYD-BNB
CHRISTOPHER JON MILLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARGARET HEIL, in her Official Capacity as Program Administrator of the SOTMP and
Chief of Rehabilitation Programs;
RICHARD G. LINS, Individually, and in his Official Capacity as SOTMP Therapist, and
Litigation Coordinator;
CHRISTINA ORTIZ-MARQUEZ, Individually, and in her Official Capacity as SOTMP
Therapist;
SAMUEL MICHAEL DUNLAP, in his Official Capacity as SOTMP Phase II Program
Coordinator;
BURL MCCULLAR, in his Official Capacity as SOTMP Program Manager;
ARISTEDES ZAVAR[A]S, in his Official Capacity as Executive Director;
CHRISTINE TYLER, Individually, and in her Official Capacity as SOTMP Therapist; and
JAYLYNNE CHUPP, in her Official Capacity as SOTMP Therapist,
Defendants.
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION
This matter is before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Objection to U.S. Magistrates
Granting of Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time” filed June 23, 2011. Plaintiff
objects to the fact that Magistrate Judge Boland granted a motion for extension of time
for Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction when
Defendants initially missed the response deadline of May 23, 2011.
After the deadline to respond passed, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Order on June 3,
2011, which sought the granting of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction based on
Defendants’ failure to respond. Plaintiff claimed in the motion that Defendants’ failure to
respond was a tacit admission to the motion. On June 6, 2011, Defendants filed a
Motion for Extension of Time stating that due to an administrative error, the response
date was erroneously calendared for July 22, 2011. The motion stated that the error
was not discovered until the filing of Plaintiff’s Motion for Order. Defendants requested
that they be granted an enlargement of time to June 7, 2011, to file their response, and
the response to the preliminary injunction motion was filed on that date. By Minute
Order of June 13, 2011, Magistrate Judge Boland granted Defendants’ June 6, 2011
Motion for Extension of Time and denied as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Order.
Since Plaintiff filed a timely Objection, I must review Magistrate Judge Boland's
Minute Order of June 13, 2011, to determine whether it is "clearly erroneous or contrary
to law" as the nature of the matter is nondispositive. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “The clearly
erroneous standard . . . requires that the reviewing court affirm unless [a nondispositive
ruling] unless ‘on the entire evidence is left with the firm and definite conviction that a
mistake has been committed.’” Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Industries, 847 F.2d 1458,
1464 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S.
364, 395 (1948)).
Plaintiff states in his Objection that because the motion for extension of time was
untimely, Defendants were required to show excusable neglect under Fed. R. Civ. P.
6(1)(B). Defendant’s motion did not mention or explain how their error in calendering
the correct date for the response rises to the level of excusable neglect, and Plaintiff
argues that Defendant’s inattentiveness to deadlines does not rise to this level. Further,
-2-
Plaintiff argues that Defendants set forth no valid reasons or arguments why their
untimely motion should be granted and, that if the Court accepts this reason for
excusable neglect, any party could flout a deadline and later claim excusable neglect.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Boland’s ruling granting the motion for
extension of time was clearly erroneous and contrary to law as there is nothing in the
record to reflect that he considered whether Defendants met the standard for excusable
neglect. Plaintiff asserts that he has been prejudiced by Defendants’ delay in
responding to the preliminary injunction motion.
I overrule Plaintiff’s Objection. According to the Supreme Court, “Congress
plainly contemplated that the courts would be permitted, where appropriate, to accept
late filings caused by inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness, as well as by intervening
circumstances beyond the party's control.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick
Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 388 (1993) (emphasis added). In order to
determine whether neglect is “excusable”, the Supreme Court has stated that “the
determination is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant
circumstances surrounding the party’s omission.” Id. at 395. The factors to be looked
at in this inquiry include “the danger of prejudice to the [nonmovant], the length of the
delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reasons for the delay,
including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the
movant acted in good faith.” Id.; see also In re Four Seasons Securities Laws Litigation,
493 F.2d 1288, 1290-91 (10th Cir.1974) (finding no error in enlarging time under Rule
6(b) in the absence of any showing of bad faith or prejudice).
-3-
Here, Defendants sought an extension of time to respond as a result of neglect
or negligence based on a calendaring error. There is no indication that the failure to
timely respond was in bad faith, the delay was short in duration, and Plaintiff suffered no
prejudice as his Motion for Preliminary Injunction was denied without prejudice on
August 5, 2011. Under these circumstances, Magistrate Judge Boland could have
found that Defendants showed excusable neglect, even though he did not explicitly
discuss this in his Minute Order, and I do not find that a mistake was committed.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s Objection to U.S. Magistrates Granting of Defendant’s
Motion for Extension of Time” filed June 23, 2011 (ECF No. 75) is OVERRULED, and
the Minute Order of June 13, 2011 (ECF No. 65) is AFFIRMED.
Dated: October 13, 2011
BY THE COURT:
s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel
Chief United States District Judge
-4-
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?