MUSTAFA T. KASUBHAI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
MUSTAFA T. KASUBHAI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Brian A. Jeremiah (Jeremiah), a self-represented litigant in the custody of Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Mark Nooth, J. Delgado, M. Jones, and Lt. Parks (collectively, defendants) alleging violations of his rights under the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. Before the court is defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF 106. For the reasons stated below, defendants' motion for summary judgment should be DENIED. ECF 106.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 13, 2016, Jeremiah filed an amended complaint raising 16 separate claims against numerous SRCI employees. See Am. Compl., ECF 9. On June 26, 2017, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims. Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., ECF 40. This court granted defendants' motion and dismissed all claims on March 23, 2018. See Judgment, ECF 71. Jeremiah filed an appeal regarding the dismissal of his claims, and the Ninth Circuit issued a decision on March 15, 2022, affirming in part and vacating in part this court's judgment. See Jeremiah v. Aly, No. 18-35450, 2021 WL 5320874, at *1 (9th Cir. Nov. 16, 2021); Mandate, ECF 84. On remand, and pursuant to the Ninth Circuit's ruling, this court reopened Jeremiah's case with respect to claims 14, 15, and 16. See Order, ECF 85. This action therefore proceeds only as to claims 14, 15, and 16, which Jeremiah asserts against the following defendants: Mark Nooth, SRCI Superintendent; J. Delgado, SRCI Counselor; M. Jones, SRCI Counselor; and Lt. Parks., SRCI corrections officer.
On April 20, 2022, the court ordered: “With respect to the remaining claims, discovery shall be completed and dispositive motions shall be filed by 6/28/2022.” Order, ECF 90. On June 24, 2022, defendants moved the court for an order granting a ninety (90) day extension of time to file dispositive motions. Mot. Ext. Time 2, ECF 94. On July 1, 2022, the court granted defendants' motion and ordered: “Dispositive Motions are due by 9/26/2022.” See Order, ECF 96. On January 31, 2023, the court ordered the parties to submit a status report within 30 days of the court's order. See Order, ECF 104. Neither party filed the court-ordered status report.
Instead of filing its court-ordered status report within 30 days as ordered, on February 23, 2023, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. See Defs.' Mot., ECF 106. Jeremiah filed a response on February 28, 2023, stating, “I object to the acceptance of a document for which the deadline is 4 months past.” Object. & Resp. 1, ECF 108. Jeremiah argued that, “defendants have filed no motions asking for an extension, but 4 months later . . . decided to file a dispositive motion with no explanation or request to allow a very late filing.” Id. Jeremiah also argued that defendants' motion for summary judgment should be denied on substantive grounds. See id. at 3-4.
DISCUSSION
The Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ), which represents defendants in this case, does not deny that it filed Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 106) on February 23, 2023, or that its filing date was four months after the deadline of September 26, 2022. Instead, the DOJ argues that “the court may examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether ‘good cause' exists for an extension of time” and urges the court to consider “prejudice to the opposing party, length of and reason for the delay, and whether the extension is sought in good faith.” Id. (citing In re Am. Exp. Fin. Advisors Sec. Litig., 672 F.3d 113, 129 (2d Cir. 2011)). The DOJ claims that “[Jeremiah]'s numerous motions and awaiting the Court's response to those motions delayed [the DOJ]'s filing of [defendants'] summary judgment motion in this case. Id. at 2.
As the Second Circuit noted in In re Am. Exp. Fin., “Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to extend the time during which an act must be done ‘on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.'” 672 F.3d at 129 (emphasis added). Here, the DOJ never filed a motion seeking an extension of time to file its motion for summary judgment, and, in arguing that the court should accept its late filing, it fails to address its obligation to file a motion seeking permission to do so as Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b) requires. See In re Am. Exp. Fin., 672 F.3d at 129.
Instead of filing a motion seeking an extension of time to file its summary judgment motion, the DOJ blames its late filing on Jeremiah's “numerous motions” and goes further by complaining that “the [c]ourt never addressed either party's missing the deadline for filing a summary judgment motion on September 26, 2022.” Reply 4. However, as this court has previously noted, “‘[a] litigant who ignores case-management deadlines does so at his peril.'” Chao v. Westside Drywall, Inc., 709 F.Supp.2d 1037, 1073 (D. Or. 2010), as amended (May 13, 2010) (denying the plaintiff's motion to file amended pleadings) (quoting Rosario-Diaz v. Gonzalez, 140 F.3d 312, 315-316 (1st Cir. 1998) (holding that “the district court's refusal to entertain the [defendants'] motions for summary judgment”-filed eight and fifteen weeks after the deadline for filing dispositive motions and with “no attempt to request a modification of the applicable deadline”-was “well within the district court's discretion”)).
The DOJ insists that it “has shown good cause as to why the deadlines should be modified . . . in this case,” and argues that it has “satisfied the factors listed pursuant to LR 163” regarding “Motion to Change or Extend Court Imposed Deadlines.” Again, however, LR 16-3 requires that, “objections to any court-imposed deadline must be raised by motion[,]” (emphasis added)-which, once again, the DOJ has failed to do.
In sum, the court ordered the parties to file dispositive motions by September 26, 2022, but the DOJ filed Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on February 23, 2023, without explanation and without seeking permission to do so by filing a motion for extension of time pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b). The motion for summary judgment should therefore be denied.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons above, defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF 106) should be DENIED.
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment or appealable order. The parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this recommendation to file specific written objections with the Court. If an objection is filed, any response to the objection is due within fourteen (14) days from the date of the objection. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72, 6. The parties are advised that the failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).