James Edward Scott III v. Melissa Mitchell, et al.

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 JAMES EDWARD SCOTT III, Case No. 3:23-cv-00231-ART-CLB 6 Plaintiff, ORDER 7 v.

8 MELISSA MITCHELL, et al.,

9 Defendants.

10 Pro se Plaintiff James Edward Scott III brings this civil rights action under 11 § 1983 against Defendants Melissa Mitchell (“Mitchell”), Gaylene Fukagawa 12 (“Fukagawa”), Vanessa Timbreza (“Timbreza”), Kellen Prost (“Prost”), and Lorenzo 13 Villegas (“Villegas”) (collectively “Defendants”). On October 9, 2025, Plaintiff 14 requested an extension to file a late motion approximately eight months after the 15 dispositive motion deadline. (ECF No. 56 at 2.) Judge Baldwin issued an order 16 denying Plaintiff’s motion, because it did not meet the standard for excusable 17 neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). (ECF No. 57.) 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order 19 denying his Motion for Leave to File Late Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 20 (ECF No. 58.) 21 I. Legal Standard 22 Magistrate judges are authorized to resolve pretrial matters subject to district 23 court review under a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. 28 U.S.C. § 24 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); LR IB 3-1(a). A district court will thus 25 defer to a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order unless it is clearly erroneous 26 or contrary to law. Grimes v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 27 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence 28 1 to support it, the reviewing body on the entire evidence is left with the definite 2 and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” 24-7 Grp. of Companies, 3 Inc. v. Roberts, No. 3:13-CV-00211-MMD-WGC, 2014 WL 12707232, at *2 (D. 4 Nev. Nov. 21, 2014) (quoting United States v. Ressam, 593 F.3d 1095, 1118 (9th 5 Cir. 2010)). “A decision is ‘contrary to law’ if it applies an incorrect legal standard 6 or fails to consider an element of the applicable standard.” Id. (quoting Conant v. 7 McCoffey, C97–0139, 1998 WL 164946, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar.16, 1998)). 8 Local Rule 26-3 states that requests to extend deadlines after the expiration 9 of the subject deadline will not be granted “unless the movant also demonstrates 10 that the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.” LR 26-3. “Whether 11 neglect is excusable depends on at least four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice 12 on the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the 13 proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in 14 good faith.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1); see Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. D.M.S.I., 15 LLC, 871 F.3d 751, 765 (9th Cir. 2017). 16 II. Analysis 17 Plaintiff objects to Judge Baldwin’s conclusions because he claims that the 18 order overlooked “(a) the absence of prejudice to Defendants, (b) the disability- 19 related access barriers that constitute good cause, and (c) Plaintiff’s demonstrable 20 good faith.” (ECF No. 58 at 2.) Plaintiff’s argument fails because Judge Baldwin’s 21 order finding that Plaintiff failed to meet the Rule 60(b)(1) standard is not clearly 22 erroneous or contrary to law. 23 Contrary to Plaintiff’s objection, Judge Baldwin did not overlook any of 24 Plaintiff’s arguments. Judge Baldwin specifically addressed how Defendants 25 would be prejudiced by the relief he sought, because the Court has already ruled 26 on the merits of the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 57.) 27 She held that allowing Plaintiff to file a partial motion for summary judgment 28 eight months after the dispositive motion deadline would push back the deadline 1 || for a joint pretrial order and the trial itself, in addition to forcing Defendants to 2 || return to litigating substantive motions. (Id.) 3 Mr. Scott argued that his eight-month delay should be found to be 4 || excusable neglect because of his renal disease and limited access to the public 5 || library’s computers. (ECF No. 58 at 2-3.) Mr. Scott, however, filed his response 6 || to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in March 2025 (ECF No. 46), a 7 || response to Defendants’ objections to the R&R in September 2025 (ECF No. 50), 8 || and a motion for a settlement conference on October 2, 2025 (ECF No. 53) before 9 || filing the present motion. This demonstrates that despite these challenges, Mr. 10 || Scott was not completely prevented from litigating his case in a timely manner. 11 || Judge Baldwin’s conclusion that the considerable delay in filing the motion was 12 || not in good faith is therefore not clearly erroneous. (ECF No. 57.) 13 III. Conclusion 14 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s 15 || Order (ECF No. 58) is OVERRULED. 16 17 Dated this 17 day of April, 2026. 18 19 Ars jlosed Jd 20 ANNE R. TRAUM 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28