Benyamini v. Blackburn et al

Filing 97

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 05/03/16 ordering plaintiff's motion to supplement the record 94 is granted. Plaintiff's objections 95 , 96 are construed as a renewed motion for extension of time to file a response to defendants' motion to deem plaintiff a vexatious litigant. Plaintiff's motion for extension 95 , 96 is granted and plaintiff shall have an additional 60 days up to and including 7/15/16 to respond to defendants' motion to deem him a vexatious litigant. No further extensions of time will be granted absent a showing of extraordinary cause. (Plummer, M)

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 13 14 15 No. 2:13-cv-0205 MCE AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER M. BLACKBURN, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has filed objections to the order partially granting his motion to extend his time to 18 respond to defendants’ motion to deem him a vexatious litigant (ECF Nos. 95-96) and a motion to 19 supplement his objections (ECF No. 94). 20 Plaintiff’s objections, which this court construes as a renewed motion for extension, 21 provide the additional information the court notified plaintiff he needed to provide should he seek 22 further extension of his time to file a response to the motion to deem him a vexatious litigant 23 (ECF No. 93). ECF Nos. 95, 96. The motion to supplement seeks to supplement the objections 24 with an MRI report and surgery and anesthesiology consent forms as proof that plaintiff had 25 surgery. ECF No. 94. 26 Plaintiff appears to have misunderstood the court’s previous order requiring that he 27 provide additional information to support a sixty-day extension of time, as he accuses the court of 28 not believing that he had surgery. ECF No. 94 at 2. However, the court only required that 1 plaintiff provide additional information: specifically, the date he had or was scheduled to have 2 surgery and why the surgery necessitated additional time to draft the complaint when he had 3 access to voice-to-text software. ECF No. 93. Although plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is not 4 excused from providing the court with sufficient information to determine whether good cause 5 exists to grant his request for extension which, contrary to plaintiff’s claim, is not minimal. 6 Plaintiff is also reminded that though he is proceeding pro se, he is no longer incarcerated and is 7 therefore no longer afforded much of the leniency afforded to prisoners due to their incarcerated 8 status. See Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1986) (highlighting 9 difference between incarcerated and unincarcerated pro se plaintiffs). 10 Plaintiff has now notified the court that his surgery took place on April 15, 2016, and has 11 explained the difficulties he faces in drafting his response despite his access to voice-to-text 12 software. ECF Nos. 95, 96. The court finds this to be good cause for a sixty-day extension of 13 plaintiff’s time to file a response to defendants’ motion to deem him a vexatious litigant. Plaintiff 14 also cites numerous financial hardships. However, he is advised that while the court is 15 sympathetic to his financial hardships, such difficulties do not establish good cause for extending 16 deadlines. No further extensions of time will be granted absent a showing of extraordinary cause. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the record (ECF No. 94) is granted. 19 2. Plaintiff’s objections (ECF Nos. 95, 96) are construed as a renewed motion for 20 21 extension of time to file a response to defendants’ motion to deem plaintiff a vexatious litigant. 3. Plaintiff’s motion for extension (ECF Nos. 95, 96) is granted and plaintiff shall have an 22 additional sixty days, up to and including July 15, 2016, to respond to defendants’ motion to 23 deem him a vexatious litigant. No further extensions of time will be granted absent a showing of 24 extraordinary cause. 25 DATED: May 3, 2016 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?