Moore v. Donahoe et al

Filing 35

ORDER Extending Time for Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. In light of Plaintiff's supplemental opposition, Defendant's reply is now due by 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 10, 2012. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 7/3/2012. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/3/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
LONNIE MOORE III,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,
v.

13
PATRICK R DONAHOE,

No. C 11-05517 LB
ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR
DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON
THE PLEADINGS

14
15
16

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

[Re: ECF Nos. 32, 33, 34]

On November 14, 2011, Plaintiff Lonnie Moore III filed this action against Defendant Patrick

17

Donahoe in his official capacity as Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service.

18

Complaint, ECF No. 1. Mr. Moore brings employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the

19

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and the Rehabilitation

20

Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. Id.

21

On June 5, 2012, Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that Mr.

22

Moore failed to allege facts to support his claims, and, even if he did, failed to timely exhaust his

23

administrative remedies. Motion, ECF No. 32. On June 28, 2012, Mr. Moore timely filed an

24

opposition to Defendant’s motion. Opposition, ECF No. 33; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d); N.D. Cal. Civ.

25

L.R. 7-3(a). This means that Defendant’s reply currently is due on July 5, 2012. See N.D. Cal. Civ.

26

L.R. 7-3(c).

27
28

On July 3, 2012, the court received from Mr. Moore a supplemental opposition. Supplemental
Opposition, ECF No. 35. From what the court can tell, it generally disagrees with the arguments

C 11-05517

1

Defendant made in his motion. See id. It also attaches a number of documents that have already

2

been filed or submitted in this case. See id.

3

Even if supplemental oppositions were allowed (which they are not), Mr. Moore’s supplemental

4

opposition is untimely. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-3(a). Nevertheless, given Mr. Moore’s pro se

5

status, the court will not strike it. Instead, the court will extend the deadline for Defendant to file a

6

reply in support of his motion. As noted above, the supplemental opposition does not appear to

7

contain complex legal arguments or raise new factual issues that might otherwise prejudice

8

Defendant. In these circumstances, finds good cause to extend the deadline for Defendant to file a

9

reply to 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 10, 2012.

10

The court warns Mr. Moore that, in the future, he must comply with the court’s local rules when
filing documents with the court.

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: July 3, 2012
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C 11-05517

2