United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is co-plaintiff Antoine Hodges' motion
for additional time, which addresses this court's May 19,
2017, order to show cause as to why a proposed pretrial order
that complies with Local Rule 16-3 had not been submitted to
the court. (ECF No. 94).
order to show cause, this court noted that plaintiffs
appeared to prevent the production of a proposed pretrial
order that complied with Local Rule 16-3. (ECF No. 93). As
such, the court instructed plaintiffs to:
[J]ointly submit a written document to the court within
twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order showing cause
why a complete proposed pretrial order that complies with
Local Rule 16-3 has not been completed in a timely manner.
Either the failure to timely file this explanation or
inadequate justification for the lack of assistance with the
pretrial order may result in the dismissal of the present
case. Alternatively, plaintiffs may submit a corrected
proposed pretrial order, jointly with defendant, within
twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order.
(Id. at 2).
motion for additional time, Antoine Hodges indicates that he
has not been able to pursue his case because he has been in
custody and had difficulties accessing a law library
“or looking up the things [he] needs” in his
case. (ECF No. 94 at 1). Additionally, he indicates that his
wife, co-plaintiff Annette Hodges, has difficulty finding
time to work, care for her children, address her health
issues, and assist in the prosecution of this case.
(Id.). Plaintiff also indicates that he has instead
been focusing on “trying to get house arrest the last
few months.” (Id. at 1).
plaintiff requests that this court grant him “about 30
to 45 days upon [his] release, to find the help [he] needs in
his case.” (Id. at 3).
pro se litigants are afforded great latitude during the
pleading stage of a case, “pro se litigants are bound
by the rules of procedure.” Ghazali v. Moran,
46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). Additionally,
“[d]istrict courts have inherent power to control their
dockets. In the exercise of that power they may impose
sanctions including, where appropriate, default or
dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los
Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing
Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1961)).
January 31, 2017, Magistrate Judge Koppe set the February 21,
2017, deadline for the proposed joint pretrial order. (ECF
No. 83). On February 22, 2017, Officer Jason Evans
(“defendant”) submitted a proposed pretrial order
that indicated the extent of defense counsel's efforts to
engage with plaintiffs, providing as follows:
Officer Evans, through his Counsel, has made every effort to
submit a Joint Pre-Trial Order as contemplated by . . . this
Court's previous Orders. These efforts include preparing
the Joint Pre-Trial Order and providing it to Plaintiffs with
a request that they provide their portions; meeting with Mrs.
Hodges in person while Mr. Hodges was on the phone due to his
incarceration; providing limited direction to the Pro Se
Plaintiffs including copies of pleadings and disclosures to
assist them in completing their portions; and speaking with
Mrs. Hodges on the telephone and via e-mail. In addition,
Officer Evans' Counsel has coordinated and communicated
with Carlin Conservation Camp, where Mr. Hodges is currently
incarcerated, to arrange telephone calls and ensuring that
Mr. Hodges was provided the same documents, pleadings and
disclosures Mrs. Hodges was provided. Despite Officer
Evans' Counsel's best efforts, Officer Evans has been
unable to obtain Plaintiffs' relevant portions to
finalize a Joint Pre-Trial Order. As the Court ordered the
parties submit a Joint Pre-Trial Order by February 21, 2017
(which was also the date a mandatory Settlement Conference
was held in this matter), Officer Evans is submitting an
individual Pre-Trial Order.
(ECF No. 89 at 1 n.1).
response to that filing, this court indicated on February 28,
2017, that the one-sided proposed pretrial order violated
Local Rule IA 6-2 and Local Rule 16-4(d), which govern the
required form of order for stipulations and the form of a
pretrial order, respectively. (ECF No. 90).
then filed a corrected proposed pretrial order on March 3,
2017, which also indicated plaintiffs' inability to
contribute to the proposed pretrial order. (ECF No. 91). On
March 6, 2017, this court indicated that defendant's
proposed submission violated Local Rule 16-3(b)(9), which
requires “[a] statement by each party of
whether they intend to present evidence in electronic format
to jurors for purposes of jury deliberations.” LR
16-3(b)(9) (emphasis added); see also (ECF No. 92).
19, 2017, this court entered the aforementioned order to show
cause within twenty-one (21) days for plaintiffs' failure
to contribute to an adequate pretrial order. (ECF No. 93).
Within eleven (11) days of the court rendering that order,
plaintiff submitted the present motion for additional time.
(ECF No. 94).
this court required a joint statement from not only Antoine
Hodges, but also his wife, Annette Hodges. (ECF No. 93).
Instead, Antoine filed a motion-unsigned by Annette, who is
not in custody, and vaguely asserting facts with little
detail or explanation-requesting that this court and
defendant wait up to a month and a half after his
indeterminate release from custody before acting on the
motion to show cause. (ECF No. 94). Notably, ...