Davis et al v. Hayes et al

Filing 97

ORDER striking as untimely Plaintiff Davis' 96 Motion for Extension of Time signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Keith Davis, Prisoner ID: 936379)(PM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 KEITH ADAIR DAVIS, 10 11 12 13 14 CASE NO. C16-1709 RSM Plaintiff, v. ORDER STRIKING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS UNTIMELY WILLIAM HAYES, et al., Defendants. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Keith Adair Davis’ “Motion for Time – 15 Extension to Respond to R and R.” Dkt. #96. On December 4, 2017, the Court issued a three-page 16 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the denial of Mr. Davis’ pending Motion for 17 Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). Dkt. #74. The R&R stated, “[o]bjections, if any, to this 18 Report and Recommendation must be filed and served no later than December 18, 2017,” and that 19 if no objections were filed, the matter would be ready for the Court’s consideration on December 20 22, 2017. Id. at 3. Objections were limited to five pages. Id. The deadline for objections passed 21 without any filing by Mr. Davis, and on the morning of December 22, 2017, the Court issued its 22 Order adopting the R&R and denying Plaintiff’s TRO Motion. Dkt. #94. Later that day, the Court 23 24 ORDER STRIKING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS UNTIMELY - 1 1 was made aware of the instant Motion, dated December 18, 2017, but not received by the Court 2 until the late afternoon of December 21, 2017. Dkt. #96. 3 Mr. Davis’ Motion is very brief. He states only that he was transferred to another DOC 4 facility on December 15, 2017, “[b]efore his response could be sent to the Court by the CM/ECF 5 System that is due, December 18, 2017.” Dkt. #96. Mr. Davis argues that he “has no control over 6 the ‘e-filing’ of documents as an inmate,” and that “‘e-filing’ is done by the DOC staff.” Id. Mr. 7 Davis also states “receiving property is a slow-moving process.” Id. Mr. Davis does not ask for a 8 specific amount of time to extend the deadline, and he does not attach proposed Objections. 9 “A motion for relief from a deadline should, whenever possible, be filed sufficiently in 10 advance of the deadline to allow the court to rule on the motion prior to the deadline.” LCR 7(j). 11 Parties should not assume that the motion will be granted and must comply with the existing 12 deadline unless the court orders otherwise.” Id. 13 Mr. Davis has failed to file this Motion in advance of the deadline at issue, and failed to 14 state why it was not possible to do so. Mr. Davis, signed up for prisoner e-filing, was aware of the 15 R&R and the deadline for Objections for two weeks prior to his transfer, and he fails to indicate an 16 inability to file the instant Motion earlier than December 21, 2017. Accordingly, this Motion will 17 be stricken as untimely. 18 Moreover, even if Plaintiff had established good cause for an extension of time to file 19 objections, he does not request any specific period of time, or attach his proposed Objections. 20 Finally, the underlying R&R recommended denying Mr. Davis’ Motion for TRO because 21 the Defendants in this matter, staff at the King County Correctional Facility, have no authority to 22 order the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) to provide Mr. Davis with legal 23 materials, and no independent duty to assist Mr. Davis in preparing his case. Dkt. 74 at 2. The 24 ORDER STRIKING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS UNTIMELY - 1 1 R&R notes that “to the extent Mr. Davis seeks to bring a separate action against the DOC 2 compelling the DOC to provide the requested federal rules, he should do so by filing a separate 3 complaint…” Id. The Court notes that these rulings are based on the procedural posture of the 4 case and undeniable facts in the record about where Mr. Davis is housed. There is nothing Mr. 5 Davis could argue in any Objections to change the procedural basis for these rulings without 6 contradicting facts established by the record. 7 Accordingly, the Court finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff Davis’ Motion for Extension of 8 Time (Dkt. #96) is STRICKEN as untimely. 9 10 11 12 13 Dated this 22nd day of December, 2017. A RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER STRIKING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS UNTIMELY - 1

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?