(PC) Johnson v. Nelson

Opinion

MICHAEL WAYNE JOHNSON, No. 2:20-cv-0967 WBS DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER Defendant. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that defendant was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s request for a settlement conference (ECF No. 58), objection to defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 59), and motion for extension of time to file an opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 60). The court will address each motion as set forth below. I. Request for Settlement Conference Plaintiff requests a settlement conference in the interest of judicial economy. (ECF No. 58.) Plaintiff indicates that he would be willing to settle this action in exchange for a monetary payment. (Id. at 3.) Defendant has not indicated a willingness to participate in a settlement conference at this time. The court will not order settlement unless both parties indicate a willingness to participate in a settlement conference. Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff’s request for a settlement conference without prejudice. II. Objection to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiff seeks an order from this court denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment as untimely because he did not receive the motion by the filing deadline of August 26, 2022. (ECF No. 59.) He argues that it is defendant’s responsibility to make sure that he received the motion by August 26, 2022. He states that the motion had a postmark date of September 29, 2022, and he did not receive the motion until September 6, 2022. (Id. at 2.) By order dated June 9, 2022, the undersigned granted defendant’s motion for an extension of time. (ECF No. 53.) The order stated that any pretrial motion should be filed on or before August 26, 2022. (Id.) The docket indicates that defendant’s motion for summary judgment was filed on August 26, 2022. (See ECF No. 56.) The September 13, 2022, Discovery and Scheduling Order states that any pretrial motions shall be filed by a specified date. (ECF No. 32 at 6.) However, that order, as well as the two orders extending the deadline for filing such motions, did not mandate that any pretrial motions be served by a specific date. Additionally, Local Rule 230(l) sets the due date for oppositions shall be filed twenty-one days after service of a motion, but does not require that motions be served on any specific date. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(l). Accordingly, defendant’s motion was timely filed pursuant to the Local Rules and the Discovery and Scheduling Order. Plaintiff argues that if the court deems defendant’s motion timely filed, he does not believe he can receive a fair ruling from the court. The court notes that adverse rulings alone are not sufficient to undermine this court’s jurisdiction. See Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008), abrogated on other grounds in Simmons v. Himmelreich, 578 U.S. 621 (2016) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”). III. Motion for an Extension of Time to File an Opposition Plaintiff has requested an additional sixty days to file an opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 60.) Plaintiff indicates that he needs additional time because California Institute for Men (CIM), where he is presently housed, is on COVID-19 lockdown. He further states that because of the additional restrictions, he “has no way to do research for a defense against summary judgment” until the restrictions are lifted. Good cause appearing, the court will grant plaintiff's motion for an extension of time. To the extent COVID-19 restrictions interfere with his ability to conduct research plaintiff may seek an extension of time. Any further motion for an extension of time should indicate the amount of time requested and the reason additional time is necessary. IV. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs request for a settlement conference (ECF No. 58) is denied without prejudice; 2. Plaintiff's opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 59), construed as a motion to deem the motion for summary judgment as untimely, is denied; and 3. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (ECF NO. 60) is granted. Plaintiff shall have an additional sixty days to file and serve his opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Dated: September 23, 2022 .B ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE pB:12 DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil.Rights/R/john0967.var