Smith v. Humboldt County Sheriff's Office Correctional Facility

Background

Ryan Thomas Smith filed this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events that occurred while he was housed at the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office Correctional Facility. The court’s March 22, 2024 screening order found that the complaint stated either an Eighth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment claim, ordered service on the defendant, and set a deadline for the defendant to file a dispositive motion. The order states that the original deadline was June 21, 2024.

The defendant did not file a dispositive motion by that deadline and did not notify the court that it believed the case could not be resolved through summary judgment. Court staff contacted the defendant’s lawyer in July and September 2024 about the missed deadline, but the defendant did not promptly seek an extension or permission to file late. After the court issued an order to show cause asking why default should not be entered for failure to defend, the defendant responded and informally requested more time. It later filed the motion addressed in this order, attaching a proposed summary-judgment motion.

The request for more time

The defendant argued that the delay was not in bad faith and attributed it to understaffing, an increased workload, and illness. The court treated the request as governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), which permits an expired deadline to be extended for good cause when the failure resulted from “excusable neglect.” In deciding whether neglect is excusable, courts consider the reason for the delay, whether the delay was within the party’s reasonable control, whether the party acted in good faith, the length and effect of the delay, and possible prejudice to the opposing party.

The court identified several problems with the request. First, the request for an extension was filed about three and a half months after the dispositive-motion deadline, even though the court’s screening order and standing order required requests to extend deadlines to be filed before the deadline. Second, the motion did not comply with Civil Local Rule 6-3 because it lacked a declaration describing efforts to obtain a stipulation to change the deadline and did not include a proposed order.

Third, the court found that the defendant had not shown excusable neglect. It concluded that the defendant had not adequately explained why it could not seek an extension before the deadline, after the July and September reminders, or after the September order to show cause. The court also found that the record did not support the defendant’s understaffing and illness explanations. At the hearing, the defendant’s lawyer acknowledged that he had likely not read the part of the order setting the deadline, had not acted with reasonable diligence, and had not been prevented from informing the court earlier about the problem.

The court found that the factor concerning the reason for the delay weighed heavily against excusable neglect. It treated the good-faith factor as neutral because there was no indication of bad faith but also no basis for an affirmative finding of good faith. The court said the record was silent on prejudice, but noted that Smith’s filings indicated he had evidence concerning the merits and would seek discovery, creating a risk of harm to his case preparation if the late motion were allowed.

Ruling and settlement referral

The court DENIED the defendant’s motion for an extension of time to file a dispositive motion. The order did not rule on the proposed summary-judgment motion or decide the underlying Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment claim.

The court also REFERS the case to Magistrate Judge Robert Illman for a judicial settlement conference under the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. The court stated that Smith had another case involving essentially the same parties but different causes of action and that coordinated settlement proceedings could help the parties consider a global or coordinated settlement. The parties were ORDERED to file a joint status report within 30 days after the settlement proceedings, addressing settlement, any further settlement proceedings, a discovery plan, a case schedule, and matters required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.