Haraszewski v. Knipp

Filing 147

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 11/18/20 DENYING 145 Motion for extension of time. (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 H. DYMITRI HARASZEWSKI, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:13-cv-2494 JAM DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER KNIPP, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. He has filed a document seeking 18 “clarification” of this court’s October 28, 2020 order and an extension of time. First, plaintiff 19 expresses some confusion over a reference to a motion to dismiss in section 2.a. of the order. 20 There is no such reference. Section 2.a. directs plaintiff to file by November 10 any objections to 21 this court’s August 12 recommendation that his motion to amend be denied. (See ECF No. 142 at 22 2.) What plaintiff appears to be attempting by this argument is an additional basis for another 23 extension of time to file objections. 24 This court recommended denial of the motion to amend based on prejudice to defendants 25 and plaintiff’s undue delay in bringing the motion. (ECF No. 142.) Those issues were raised in 26 defendants’ April 17, 2020 opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 112.) With two extensions of 27 time (ECF Nos. 119, 125), plaintiff had three months to research those issues and file his July 23, 28 2020 reply (ECF No. 126). Plaintiff has been provided two extensions of time (ECF Nos. 139, 1 1 2 142) and has had an additional three months to research those same issues and file objections. This court appreciates the difficulties plaintiff has had in conducting legal research. But, 3 while plaintiff alleges general difficulties with conducting legal research, he does not specifically 4 explain what he needs to research and why that research is necessary to file objections. 5 In the October 28 order, this court advised plaintiff that no further extensions of time 6 would be granted to file objections to the August 12 findings and recommendations. Plaintiff has 7 not shown any extraordinary circumstances that might cause this court to re-think that order. 8 9 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 145) is denied. DATED: November 18, 2020 11 12 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 DLB:9 DB/prisoner-civil rights/hara2494.mta obj eot(3) 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?