Benyamini v. Hommer et al

Filing 123

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/25/2017 GRANTING-IN-PART 122 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff shall have an additional 7 days, up to 11/6/2017, to file an opposition to defendants motion for terminating sanctions. (Hunt, G)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT BENYAMINI 12 No. 2:11-cv-2317 TLN AC P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 O’BRIAN, et al., 15 ORDER Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has filed a motion for a “lengthy extension of time” to file an opposition to 18 defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions. ECF No. 122. His response to the motion is 19 currently due on October 30, 2017. As with a number of his previous filings, the majority of the 20 motion focuses on alleged constitutional violations plaintiff suffered while in prison, the 21 unfairness of his situation, his belief that this case has been “over litigated,” and the liberal 22 pleading standard afforded pro se parties. Plaintiff has been previously advised that none of these 23 establishes good cause for an extension. He also cites his general school obligations and financial 24 hardships, which he has also been advised do not establish good cause for extending deadlines. 25 Having initiated this lawsuit, plaintiff has an obligation to pursue it diligently and he may 26 sometimes be required to make difficult decisions regarding his priorities. 27 28 Although plaintiff does assert that he has been working on a production being put on by his college that requires an extension, the timeframe for this obligation is unclear, as is the 1 amount of time he has had to devote to the production.1 ECF No. 122 at 7. Furthermore, it is 2 questionable that plaintiff’s participation in the production has interfered with his ability to 3 respond to the motion for sanctions when he was able to submit a thirty-two-page motion for 4 extension. For these reasons, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to establish good cause for an 5 extension of time, particularly a lengthy extension of unspecified duration. However, the court 6 will grant plaintiff a brief, seven-day extension to file his response. Plaintiff is cautioned that 7 should he move for another extension of time that relies on the same grounds that he has already 8 been told do not establish good cause, the motion will be denied. A motion for extension must 9 (1) identify the length of the extension requested and (2) explain why plaintiff cannot meet the 10 current deadline. This explanation should include information about what plaintiff has been 11 doing during the time he has already had to complete his opposition. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time 13 (ECF No. 122) is granted in part. Plaintiff shall have an additional seven days, up to November 14 6, 2017, to file an opposition to defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions. 15 DATED: October 25, 2017 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 He states that he has “worked twelve hours straight through this Tec week.” ECF No. 122 at 7. It is not clear if he means that he has been working twelve-hour days or that he has worked a total of twelve hours during the week in question. 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?