Benyamini v. Hommer et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:11-cv-2317 TLN AC P
O’BRIAN, et al.,
Plaintiff has filed a motion for a “lengthy extension of time” to file an opposition to
defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions. ECF No. 122. His response to the motion is
currently due on October 30, 2017. As with a number of his previous filings, the majority of the
motion focuses on alleged constitutional violations plaintiff suffered while in prison, the
unfairness of his situation, his belief that this case has been “over litigated,” and the liberal
pleading standard afforded pro se parties. Plaintiff has been previously advised that none of these
establishes good cause for an extension. He also cites his general school obligations and financial
hardships, which he has also been advised do not establish good cause for extending deadlines.
Having initiated this lawsuit, plaintiff has an obligation to pursue it diligently and he may
sometimes be required to make difficult decisions regarding his priorities.
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
amount of time he has had to devote to the production.1 ECF No. 122 at 7. Furthermore, it is
questionable that plaintiff’s participation in the production has interfered with his ability to
respond to the motion for sanctions when he was able to submit a thirty-two-page motion for
extension. For these reasons, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to establish good cause for an
extension of time, particularly a lengthy extension of unspecified duration. However, the court
will grant plaintiff a brief, seven-day extension to file his response. Plaintiff is cautioned that
should he move for another extension of time that relies on the same grounds that he has already
been told do not establish good cause, the motion will be denied. A motion for extension must
(1) identify the length of the extension requested and (2) explain why plaintiff cannot meet the
current deadline. This explanation should include information about what plaintiff has been
doing during the time he has already had to complete his opposition.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time
(ECF No. 122) is granted in part. Plaintiff shall have an additional seven days, up to November
6, 2017, to file an opposition to defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions.
DATED: October 25, 2017
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.
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?