Opinion
CASE NO. C12-6018 RJB-JRC
05-10-2013
ROBERT E JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. SARA DI VITTORIO et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE
AND DENYING AN UNTIMELY
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action to United States Magistrate Judge, J. Richard Creatura. The Court's authority for the referral is 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and Magistrate Judge Rules MJR3 and MJR4.
Plaintiff asks the Court to grant him a forty-five day extension of time to file a response to defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff also asks the Court to reconsider the January 16, 2013, order denying appointment of counsel (ECF No. 22, declaration of plaintiff ¶1.2). Defendants do not oppose the motion for a continuance (ECF No. 23).
Plaintiff alleges that he is legally blind and it takes him longer to prepare legal papers (ECF No. 22, declaration of plaintiff ¶ 2.1 to 2.3). Plaintiff has shown good cause for an extension of time.
The Court grants the motion for an extension of time. Plaintiff's response to defendants' motion to dismiss will be due on or before June 7, 2013. Defendants' reply, if any, must be filed on or before June 14, 2013. The Clerk's Office is instructed to re-note defendants' motion to dismiss for June 14, 2013.
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the order denying appointment of counsel is untimely and does not follow the Local Rules for bringing this type of motion. See Local Rule 7(h). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and must be filed within fourteen days of the order. Local Rule 7(h) States:
(1) Standard. Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.
(2) Procedure and Timing. A motion for reconsideration shall be plainly labeled as such. The motion shall be filed within fourteen days after the order to which it relates is filed. The motion shall be noted for consideration for the day it is filed. The motion shall point out with specificity the matters which the movant believes were overlooked or misapprehended by the court, any new matters being brought to the court's attention for the first time, and the particular modifications being sought in the court's prior ruling. Failure to comply with this subsection may be grounds for denial of the motion. The pendency of a motion for reconsideration shall not stay discovery or any other procedure.
(3) Response. No response to a motion for reconsideration shall be filed unless requested by the court. No motion for reconsideration will be granted without such a request. The request will set a time when the response is due, and may limit briefing to particular issues or points raised by the motion, may authorize a reply, and may prescribe page limitations.
The Court's order denying appointment of counsel was filed January 16, 2013 (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff had until January 31, 2013 to file a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff's request, made in his April 4, 2013 declaration, is untimely (ECF No. 22). Further, plaintiff's request for reconsideration is not in the form required by the Court's Local Rule. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied.
__________
J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge