United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
JOHN E. BETTYS, Plaintiff,
KEVIN W. QUIGLEY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
EXCESS PAGES AND FOR AN EXTENSION
Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge
U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights matter has been referred to
the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 636 (b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Magistrate Judge
Rules MJR 1, MJR 3, and MJR 4. This matter is before the
Court on plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess
pages and motion to enlarge time for the filing of his
response to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Dkt.
125. Defendants object. Dkt. 126.
on November 3, 2017, this Court granted defendants'
motion for leave to file excess pages in support of their
motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. 115. Because
plaintiff automatically receives “an equal number of
additional pages, ” plaintiff's motion currently
before the Court requesting additional pages to respond is
unnecessary. See Local Rules WAWD Civil Rule
7(f)(4). Defendants received and utilized 16 additional pages
for their motion, and plaintiff automatically receives the
same amount of pages for his brief in opposition. See
id. To the extent that plaintiff may be seeking more
additional pages beyond the additional 16 pages, and seeks to
file a response longer than defendants' motion,
plaintiff's motion is denied. See Dkt. 125.
also requests additional time to respond to defendants'
long motion for summary judgment. Defendants complain that
plaintiff did not contact them to request an extension, and
that he declined to enter into an agreed briefing schedule
with them. See Dkt. 126, p. 2. Although defendants
also contest plaintiff's contention that he is a
“mere ‘pro se' layman of law struggling to
respond, ” plaintiff actually is proceeding pro se and
is not an attorney. For this reason, because defendants'
motion is very long, and to give plaintiff a fair opportunity
to respond to defendants' motion, plaintiff's motion
for an extension is granted. Defendants also are provided an
extension for their reply, as requested.
underlying § 1983 action alleging unconstitutional
conditions of confinement raises various issues, such as the
allegation that plaintiff receives less Sexual Offender
Treatment Program (“SOTP”) hours of treatment
while he is being civilly detained as a Sexually Violent
Predator (“SVP”) than is provided to prisoners.
See Dkt. 82, ¶ 4.2. In addition to his
allegations regarding insufficient SOTP treatment, plaintiff
also presents multiple various other types of allegations.
See, e.g., Id. at ¶ 4.17.
in their motion for leave to file an overlength brief, argued
that plaintiff's numerous claims “go into detail
regarding numerous aspects of daily living at the Special
Commitment Center, ” and that they believed it would
“be necessary to exceed the page limit to address these
claims sufficiently to provide the Court with a roadmap to
reaching a decision.” Dkt. 114. The Court found
defendants' argument to be persuasive, granted their
motion, and they subsequently filed a 40 page motion.
See Dkt. 117.
plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeks 9 additional days in
which to respond to defendants' motion, until December
20, 2017. See Dkt. 125. Plaintiff contends that he
is “a mere ‘pro se' layman of law struggling
through extensive discovery documentation, case-law histories
and witness declarations, without any formal legal training
to assist him in timely preparing meaningful responsive legal
pleadings.” Id. at 3. Although this
self-characterization is disputed, the Court finds it to be
persuasive. Plaintiff also indicates that he “must
complete obtaining declaratory evidence from all relevant
witnesses himself, in addition to researching relevant
case-law in response to the defense counsel's over-length
motion . . . .” Id. at 2-3. This argument,
too, the Court finds persuasive.
order to serve the interests of justice and facilitate a full
and fair opportunity for plaintiff to present his position,
the Court grants plaintiff's motion for an extension
until December 20, 2017. Defendants complain that they will
be prejudiced by such an extension, noting that they likely
will not receive plaintiff's brief until after the
Christmas holiday, and they have other briefs due and some
counsel will be out of the office. See Dkt. 126. To
alleviate these time constraint issues that granting
plaintiff's motion may cause defendants, defendants'
request that if his motion is granted that they also be
granted an extension (until January 5, 2018) to file their
reply, is granted.
reasons stated herein, the Court hereby orders that
plaintiff's Motion for extension of time is
GRANTED. Dkt. 125. His motion to file excess
pages is DENIED.
response brief, with a maximum of 16 additional pages, is due
on December 20, 2017. Defendants' reply brief is due on
January 5, 2018. The Clerk's office ...