Bettys v. Quigley et al

Filing 128

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 125 Motion for Extension of Time. His motion to file excess pages 125 is DENIED. Plaintiff's response brief, with a maximum of 16 additional pages, is due on 12/20/17. Defendants' reply brief is due on 1/5/18. The Clerk's office is directed to re-note this matter for 1/5/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge J Richard Creatura.(CMG)(cc mailed to Plaintiff)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WSTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

JOHN E. BETTYS,
Plaintiff,

11

KEVIN W. QUIGLEY, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE EXCESS PAGES AND
FOR AN EXTENSION

v.

12
13

No. 16-cv-5076-RJB-JRC

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights matter has been referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636 (b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Magistrate

17
18

Judge Rules MJR 1, MJR 3, and MJR 4. This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s

19

motion for leave to file excess pages and motion to enlarge time for the filing of his

20

response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 125. Defendants object. Dkt.

21

126.

22
23

Previously, on November 3, 2017, this Court granted defendants’ motion for leave

24

to file excess pages in support of their motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. 115.

25

Because plaintiff automatically receives “an equal number of additional pages,”

26

ORDER

1

1
2

plaintiff’s motion currently before the Court requesting additional pages to respond is
unnecessary. See Local Rules WAWD Civil Rule 7(f)(4). Defendants received and

3
4

utilized 16 additional pages for their motion, and plaintiff automatically receives the same

5

amount of pages for his brief in opposition. See id. To the extent that plaintiff may be

6

seeking more additional pages beyond the additional 16 pages, and seeks to file a

7

response longer than defendants’ motion, plaintiff’s motion is denied. See Dkt. 125.

8
9

Plaintiff also requests additional time to respond to defendants’ long motion for

10

summary judgment. Defendants complain that plaintiff did not contact them to request

11

an extension, and that he declined to enter into an agreed briefing schedule with them.

12

See Dkt. 126, p. 2. Although defendants also contest plaintiff’s contention that he is a

13
14

“mere ‘pro se’ layman of law struggling to respond,” plaintiff actually is proceeding pro

15

se and is not an attorney. For this reason, because defendants’ motion is very long, and

16

to give plaintiff a fair opportunity to respond to defendants’ motion, plaintiff’s motion

17

for an extension is granted. Defendants also are provided an extension for their reply, as

18
19

requested.

20

BACKGROUND

21
22
23

Plaintiff’s underlying § 1983 action alleging unconstitutional conditions of
confinement raises various issues, such as the allegation that plaintiff receives less Sexual

24
25
26

Offender Treatment Program (“SOTP”) hours of treatment while he is being civilly
detained as a Sexually Violent Predator (“SVP”) than is provided to prisoners. See Dkt.

ORDER

2

1
2

82, ¶ 4.2. In addition to his allegations regarding insufficient SOTP treatment, plaintiff
also presents multiple various other types of allegations. See, e.g., id. at ¶ 4.17.

3

DISCUSSION

4
5

Defendants, in their motion for leave to file an overlength brief, argued that

6

plaintiff’s numerous claims “go into detail regarding numerous aspects of daily living at

7

the Special Commitment Center,” and that they believed it would “be necessary to exceed

8
9

the page limit to address these claims sufficiently to provide the Court with a roadmap to

10

reaching a decision.” Dkt. 114. The Court found defendants’ argument to be persuasive,

11

granted their motion, and they subsequently filed a 40 page motion. See Dkt. 117.

12

Now, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeks 9 additional days in which to respond to

13
14

defendants’ motion, until December 20, 2017. See Dkt. 125. Plaintiff contends that he is

15

“a mere ‘pro se’ layman of law struggling through extensive discovery documentation,

16

case-law histories and witness declarations, without any formal legal training to assist

17

him in timely preparing meaningful responsive legal pleadings.” Id. at 3. Although this

18
19

self-characterization is disputed, the Court finds it to be persuasive. Plaintiff also

20

indicates that he “must complete obtaining declaratory evidence from all relevant

21

witnesses himself, in addition to researching relevant case-law in response to the defense

22

counsel’s over-length motion . . . .” Id. at 2-3. This argument, too, the Court finds

23
24

persuasive.

25

In order to serve the interests of justice and facilitate a full and fair opportunity

26

for plaintiff to present his position, the Court grants plaintiff’s motion for an extension

ORDER

3

1
2

until December 20, 2017. Defendants complain that they will be prejudiced by such an
extension, noting that they likely will not receive plaintiff’s brief until after the Christmas

3
4

holiday, and they have other briefs due and some counsel will be out of the office. See

5

Dkt. 126. To alleviate these time constraint issues that granting plaintiff’s motion may

6

cause defendants, defendants’ request that if his motion is granted that they also be

7

granted an extension (until January 5, 2018) to file their reply, is granted.

8
9

CONCLUSION

10
11

For the reasons stated herein, the Court hereby orders that plaintiff’s Motion for

12

extension of time is GRANTED. Dkt. 125. His motion to file excess pages is DENIED.

13

Plaintiff’s response brief, with a maximum of 16 additional pages, is due on

14

December 20, 2017. Defendants’ reply brief is due on January 5, 2018. The Clerk’s office

15

is directed to re-note this matter for January 5, 2018.
16
17

Dated this 7th day of December, 2017.

A

18
19

J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER

4