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)

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