McDaniels v. Stewart et al

Filing 250

ORDER granting in part the 245 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Plaintiff shall file his amended response on or before 8/13/18. **SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS**. The Clerk is directed to renote defendants' motion for summary judgment to 8/17/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge David W. Christel.**3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Peter McDaniels, Prisoner ID: 995036)(CMG)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

PETER J. MCDANIELS,

11

Plaintiff,
v.

12
13

BELINDA STEWART, et al.,

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-05943-BHS-DWC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
EXCESS PAGES

Defendants.

14
15
16

Plaintiff Peter J. McDaniels, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights Complaint pursuant

17 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Excess
18 Pages (“Motion”). Dkt. 245. 1
19

Pursuant to Local Rule 7, Motions for Summary Judgment and briefs in opposition “shall

20 not exceed twenty-four pages.” LCR 7(e)(3). If a party desires to go over that limit, the party
21 must file a motion of no more than two pages no later than three days before the deadline for the
22
23
1

The Court notes Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is also pending before the Court. Dkt. 231.

24 The Court will address that Motion in a separate Report and Recommendation.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE EXCESS PAGES - 1

1 pleading. LCR 7(f). Motions requesting leave to exceed the page limit are generally disfavored.
2 Id.
3

Here, Plaintiff has asked permission to file a 98 page Response – 74 pages over the limit

4 prescribed the LCR 7. Dkt. 245. He argues he is not versed in the law and so has difficulty with
5 concise legal writing, he does not possess a work processor, and he insists that this is the shortest
6 draft he is able to provide. Dkt. 245.
7

The Court believes 98 pages is excessive and will not grant Plaintiff leave to file such a

8 lengthy pleading. However, the Court recognizes Defendants have raised nine grounds in their
9 Motion for Summary Judgment and addressing so many grounds as a pro se litigant may take
10 additional space. Dkt. 231.
11

Therefore it is ORDERED:

12

1) Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. 245) is granted in part. Plaintiff may file an Amended

13

Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment that is no longer than 50

14

pages. Plaintiff is also reminded that exhibits, declarations, and other supporting

15

documentation will not count toward this page limit.

16

2) Plaintiff shall file his Amended Response on or before August 13, 2018. Failure to

17

file an Amended Response by that date will result in the Court considering only the

18

first 50 pages of Plaintiff’s current Response (Dkt. 246) when the Court makes a

19

determination on the Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 231).

20
21
22
23
24
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE EXCESS PAGES - 2

1

3) The Clerk is directed to renote Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.

2

231) to August 17, 2018.

3

Dated this 16th day of July, 2018.

A

4
5

David W. Christel
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE EXCESS PAGES - 3