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)

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