Lamon v. Adams et al

Filing 258

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 257 Request for an Enlargement of Time to File a Reply Brief signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 04/23/2014. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 BARRY LOUIS LAMON 10 11 Plaintiff, v. 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF DERRAL ADAMS, et al., 13 Case No. 1:09-cv-00205-LJO-SMS PC Defendants. (Doc. 257) 14 15 On November 12, 2013, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On December 16 17 18 23, 2013, Plaintiff Barry Lamon moved for a 90-day extension of time to file his reply. On January 15, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff a 45-day extension, specifying that no further extensions would 19 be granted. In an order granting Plaintiff's motion to compel on January 28, 2014, however, the 20 filing deadline for Plaintiff's reply brief was extended for an additional 45 days to ensure that 21 Plaintiff had sufficient time to complete his brief following his receipt of the designated discovery. 22 Accordingly, Plaintiff's brief was to have been filed with the Clerk of Court by April 15, 2014, with 23 no further extensions to be granted. The summary judgment motion was calendared for April 23, 24 25 26 2014, at which time the Court took the matter under submission. Despite having more than five months to work on the reply brief, Plaintiff now states that he 27 did not begin working on the brief until "the day after April 3, 2014" (presumably April 4, 2014). 28 He offers many excuses but no good cause for his decision to postpone his work to such a late date 1 1 even though he was obviously aware that his weekly law library time was limited and even though 2 he had received nearly all discoverable material well before Defendants filed their summary 3 judgment motion. 4 5 6 Also calendared for May 23, 2014, were Plaintiff's own motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff's "Motion for Judgment Default OR Other Sanctions for Discovery Misconduct." In briefing those two motions, Plaintiff has addressed most, if not all, of the issues that the Court must 7 consider in reviewing Defendants' motion. As a result, denying Plaintiff's request for additional time 8 9 10 11 to prepare a brief opposing does not leave Defendants' summary judgment motion unopposed. Plaintiff's motion to enlarge the time in which he may file a brief in response to Defendants' summary judgment motion is DENIED. 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: April 23, 2014 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?