Robbie Carl Ellington, Jr. v. City of Sacramento, et al.

E.D. California

Robbie Carl Ellington, Jr. v. City of Sacramento, et al.

DecidedSeptember 18, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00158

StatusUnknown

This text of Robbie Carl Ellington, Jr. v. City of Sacramento, et al. (Robbie Carl Ellington, Jr. v. City of Sacramento, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robbie Carl Ellington, Jr. v. City of Sacramento, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBBIE CARL ELLINGTON, Jr., Case No. 2:25-cv-0158-DC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Robbie Ellington, proceeding pro se, alleges that defendants, Sacramento County 19 Police Officers, violated his federal and state rights. Defendants have filed a second motion to 20 dismiss, arguing that plaintiff’s amended complaint is untimely by three days and that this action 21 should be dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 22 110. I will deny defendants’ motion without prejudice. 23 On April 4, 2025, the court permitted plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty 24 days. ECF No. 11. Thirty days from April 4, 2025, was May 4, 2025, which was a Sunday. 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a)(1)(C) extends Sunday deadlines to the next day that is not a 26 Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, which, in this case, would be May 5, 2025. And because plaintiff 27 mailed the amended complaint, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) provides an additional three 28 days “after the period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a),” thereby extending the deadline to 1 | May 8, 2025. The court received plaintiff's amended complaint on May 8, 2025, and the Clerk of 2 || Court docketed it on May 9, 2025.1 3 But even if plaintiff filed his amended complaint three days late, the court would be 4 | loathed to dismiss this action based on such a minor nonadherence to procedural requirements by 5 | apro se litigant. This is in line with this court’s strong preference to decide matters on the merits 6 | over procedural grounds. 7 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 8 1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 15, is DENIED without prejudice. 9 2. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading to the second amended complaint, ECF No. 10 | 14, within twenty-one days of this order. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ( — Dated: _ September 18, 2025 Q_——. 14 JEREMY D. PETERSON 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' Plaintiff signed his complaint April 28, 2025, and mailed it from Sierra Conservation Center, a state prison in Tuolumne County. Under the mailbox rule, a prisoner’s pleading 1s 27 || “deemed filed when he hands it over to prison authorities for mailing to the relevant court.” Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988); Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir. 28 | 2001).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBBIE CARL ELLINGTON, Jr., Case No. 2:25-cv-0158-DC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Robbie Ellington, proceeding pro se, alleges that defendants, Sacramento County 19 Police Officers, violated his federal and state rights. Defendants have filed a second motion to 20 dismiss, arguing that plaintiff’s amended complaint is untimely by three days and that this action 21 should be dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 22 110. I will deny defendants’ motion without prejudice. 23 On April 4, 2025, the court permitted plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty 24 days. ECF No. 11. Thirty days from April 4, 2025, was May 4, 2025, which was a Sunday. 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a)(1)(C) extends Sunday deadlines to the next day that is not a 26 Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, which, in this case, would be May 5, 2025. And because plaintiff 27 mailed the amended complaint, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) provides an additional three 28 days “after the period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a),” thereby extending the deadline to 1 | May 8, 2025. The court received plaintiff's amended complaint on May 8, 2025, and the Clerk of 2 || Court docketed it on May 9, 2025.1 3 But even if plaintiff filed his amended complaint three days late, the court would be 4 | loathed to dismiss this action based on such a minor nonadherence to procedural requirements by 5 | apro se litigant. This is in line with this court’s strong preference to decide matters on the merits 6 | over procedural grounds. 7 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 8 1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 15, is DENIED without prejudice. 9 2. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading to the second amended complaint, ECF No. 10 | 14, within twenty-one days of this order. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ( — Dated: _ September 18, 2025 Q_——. 14 JEREMY D. PETERSON 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' Plaintiff signed his complaint April 28, 2025, and mailed it from Sierra Conservation Center, a state prison in Tuolumne County. Under the mailbox rule, a prisoner’s pleading 1s 27 || “deemed filed when he hands it over to prison authorities for mailing to the relevant court.” Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988); Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir. 28 | 2001).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Robbie Carl Ellington, Jr. v. City of Sacramento, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robbie-carl-ellington-jr-v-city-of-sacramento-et-al-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack