Hymas v. USA

Filing 155

ORDER DENYING 154 MOTION TO RECONSIDER. Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (AY, Case Administrator)

1

FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

2

Jun 15, 2020
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3
4
5

JAY HYMAS, d/b/a DOSMEN
FARMS,
Plaintiff,

6
7
8
9
10
11

No. 4:16-cv-05091-SMJ
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
RECONSIDER

v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
INTERIOR, I to X DOES, DAVID L.
BERNHARDT, Secretary of the United
States Department of Interior, and
AURELIA SKIPWITH, Director of the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
Defendants.

12
13

Before the Court, without oral argument, is Defendants’ Motion for

14

Reconsideration on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reset Briefing Schedule, ECF No. 154.

15

Defendants seek reconsideration of the Court’s May 5, 2020 Order Granting Motion

16

to Continue Summary Judgment Hearing and Reset Briefing Schedule, ECF

17

No. 152. Having reviewed the motion and the file in this matter, the Court is fully

18

informed and denies the motion

19

The Court issued a Scheduling Order in this case on February 25, 2020. ECF

20

No. 145. On February 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion for Pro Bono

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER – 1

1

Counsel. ECF No. 147. The Court granted the motion and requested the Federal Bar

2

Association for the Eastern District of Washington recommend pro bono counsel.

3

ECF No. 148. In that Order, the Court expressly cautioned Plaintiff that the

4

Scheduling Order remained in effect and that all parties were expected to comply

5

with the deadlines it set forth. ECF No. 148 at 2. Despite this, Plaintiff failed to file

6

a response to Defendants’ renewed motion for summary judgment or to file his own

7

motion for summary judgment by the deadlines set forth in the scheduling order.

8

See ECF No. 145 at 2. Counsel was appointed to represent Plaintiff and appeared

9

on April 30, 2020, after both deadlines had passed. ECF Nos. 149, 150. Plaintiff,

10

then represented by counsel, filed a Motion to Continue Summary Judgment

11

Hearing and Reset Briefing Schedule. ECF No. 151. Defendants opposed the

12

continuance. ECF No. 151 at 2; ECF No. 149. On May 5, 2020, the Court granted

13

the requested continuance.

14

Defendants seek reconsideration of the May 5, 2020 Order granting a

15

continuance because Defendants’ timely response to the motion to continue was

16

being processed at the time the Court’s order was entered. ECF No. 154. In their

17

response, Defendants identified Plaintiff’s repeated failures throughout this case to

18

comply with deadlines set forth in this Court’s Orders or in the Local Civil Rules

19

and noted that Plaintiff had failed to explain those failures. Id. at 2–3. Defendants

20

also cited the Court’s cautionary language in the Scheduling Order, ECF No. 145,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER – 2

1

and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Pro Bono Counsel and

2

Requesting Recommendation for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel, ECF No. 148.

3

ECF No. 153 at 2. Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s filing of two new cases,

4

one of which is before this Court, reflects that Plaintiff has abandoned this litigation.

5

Id. at 3.

6

However, each of the facts raised by Defendants, with the exception of

7

Plaintiff’s filing a case not before this Court, were known to the Court at the time

8

of the Order granting a continuance. See ECF No. 149. The Court considered these

9

facts when granting the continuance. Further, denying the requested continuance

10

would result in serious prejudice to Plaintiff as it would preclude Plaintiff from both

11

responding to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and submitting his own

12

arguments for summary judgment in his favor. Due to Plaintiff’s pro se status at the

13

time of his prior failures, the Court does not find it appropriate to impose such a

14

drastic sanction for failing to comply with deadlines. The Court notes that, as

15

Plaintiff is now represented, any further delays will not be subject to similar

16

leniency. The motion is denied.

17

//

18

//

19

//

20

//

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER – 3

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

2

Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reset

3

Briefing Schedule, ECF No. 154, is DENIED.

4
5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and
provide copies to all counsel.
DATED this 15th day of June 2020.
_________________________
SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR.
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER – 4