Reginald Wayne Whatley v. Theresa Cisneros, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 2, 2025
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00270
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REGINALD WAYNE WHATLEY, Case No.: 1:22-cv-00270-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. (Doc. 41) 14 THERESA CISNEROS, et al., ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR 15 Defendants. EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION 16 (Doc. 42) 17

18 Plaintiff Reginald Wayne Whatley is represented by counsel in this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 20 conditions of confinement claims and state law negligence claims against Defendants Allison, 21 Baer, and Cisneros. 22 I. INTRODUCTION 23 On July 21, 2025, Defendants filed their motion for partial summary judgment concerning 24 exhaustion as to Defendant Allison. (Doc. 39.) 25 On August 14, 2025, the Court issued its Order Granting Substitution of Attorney and 26 Order Directing Plaintiff to File Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to Defendants’ 27 Motin for Partial Summary Judgment Within 21 Days. (Doc. 40.) 1 When more than 21 days passed, on September 19, 2025, the Court issued its Order to 2 Show Cause (OSC) in Writing Why Sanctions Should Not be Imposed for Plaintiff’s Failure to 3 File an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition. (Doc. 41.) Plaintiff was ordered to respond in 4 writing within 14 days, or, alternatively, to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition 5 within that same period. (Id. at 2-3.) 6 On October 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed a response to the OSC (Doc. 42) and a proposed order 7 discharging the OSC and extending the filing deadline for an opposition (Doc. 43). 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 Plaintiff’s counsel asserts “good cause for delay.” (Doc. 42.) She states the substitution of 10 attorney was granted after Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment was filed and, at the 11 time of the substitution, counsel did not possess “the full case file, discovery responses, or 12 exhaustion records necessary to prepare an adequate opposition.” (Id. at 2.) Counsel attests she 13 required additional time to review the documentation, particularly that relating to the exhaustion 14 defense. (Id.) At the same time, counsel states she was seeking to obtain Plaintiff’s “institutional 15 records from CDCR” and to communicate with Plaintiff “whose incarceration imposes 16 unavoidable” delays. (Id.) Counsel asserts Defendants have not been prejudiced by the brief 17 delay. (Id.) Counsel maintains “the substitution of counsel, delayed transfer of case files, and 18 difficulties in client communication constitutes excusable neglect” and asks that sanctions not be 19 imposed. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff seeks an additional 14 days within which to file an opposition to 20 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Id.) 21 While counsel for Plaintiff is correct that Defendants’ pending motion for partial summary 22 judgment was filed prior to the Court granting the substitution of attorney on August 14, 2025, 23 that same August 14 order expressly directed Plaintiff to “file any opposition or statement of non- 24 opposition to Defendants’ motion … no later than 21 days from the date of this order.” (See 25 Doc. 40 at 3, emphasis in original.) Yet, counsel Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s OSC fails to 26 explain why counsel did not timely request an extension of the filing deadline prior to the Court’s 27 issuance of the OSC on September 19, 2025. 1 This Court’s Local Rule 144(d) provides that “[c]ounsel shall seek to obtain a necessary 2 | extension from the Court ... as soon as the need for an extension becomes apparent. Requests for 3 | Court-approved extensions brought on the required filing date for the pleading or other document 4 | are looked upon with disfavor.” Given counsel Plaintiff's OSC response, counsel unquestionably 5 | should have been aware of the need for an extension of time prior to expiration of the 21-day 6 | deadline for filing an opposition as provided in the Court’s August 14, 2025, order. 7 While the Court concludes that Plaintiffs failure to comply with the Court’s order and 8 || timely respond to Defendants’ motion constitutes excusable neglect (see In re Veritas Software 9 | Corp. Sec. Litig., 496 F.3d 962, 973 (9th Cir. 2007)), in the light of counsel’s conduct cited in the 10 | OSC and the response thereto, counsel’s actions demonstrate carelessness. Counsel for Plaintiff 11 is admonished to exercise better care in complying with this Court’s orders and the Local Rules. 12 I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 13 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 14 1. The OSC issued September 19, 2025 (Doc. 41) is DISCHARGED; 15 2. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time (Doc. 42) is GRANTED; 16 3. Plaintiff SHALL file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for partial summary 17 judgment within 14 days of the date of this order. No further extensions of time will 18 be granted absent a showing of extraordinary good cause; and 19 4. Defendants shall file any reply within 14 days. See Local Rule 230(/) (applicable to 20 Motions in Prisoner Actions). 21 | ITIS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: _ October 2, 2025 | ) Ww R~ 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28