Dion Peralta Duran v. County of Riverside

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California accepted a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation in a civil-rights action arising from medical care provided during pretrial detention. The court granted summary judgment to Riverside County on the medical-care claim because the undisputed facts did not establish a constitutional violation, while denying summary judgment in all other respects. The court also denied the plaintiff’s objections concerning extensions of time and his untimely opposition.

Holdings

1. The magistrate judge properly denied plaintiff's request for a sixth extension because plaintiff had already received five extensions, represented that the fifth was the last and final extension, had more than three months to prepare the opposition, and waited until the day before the deadline to seek another extension.
2. Reconsideration was properly denied because plaintiff did not show a material change in law, a manifest failure to consider previously presented material facts, or qualifying new facts.
3. Plaintiff was not entitled to file a late opposition based on inadvertence or excusable neglect because he failed to show good cause for the sixth extension and failed to establish the asserted basis for relief.
4. Summary judgment for the County was proper because the undisputed facts failed to show a constitutional violation.
5. To the extent plaintiff sought to file a motion for summary judgment in opposition, the motion was properly denied as untimely because it was filed more than three and a half months after the deadline in the operative scheduling order.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the magistrate judge properly denied plaintiff's request for a sixth extension of time to oppose the motion for summary judgment.
2. Whether reconsideration of the denial of the sixth extension was warranted based on a material change in law, a manifest failure to consider material facts, or newly available facts.
3. Whether plaintiff demonstrated inadvertence or excusable neglect warranting permission to file an untimely opposition.
4. Whether summary judgment was proper on plaintiff's medical-care claim against the County because the undisputed facts failed to establish a constitutional violation.
5. Whether plaintiff's proposed motion for summary judgment in opposition was timely under the scheduling order.

Disposition

other