Torres v. Saba et al

Filing 88

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT re 85 MOTION for Extension of Time to File filed by Mario Torres. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 6/11/19. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARIO TORRES,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-06607-SI

v.
MIKE HANSEN, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO FILE
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 85

12
13

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 8, 2019. Plaintiff’s opposition

14

to that motion originally was due on April 5, 2019, and the deadline was later extended at

15

plaintiff’s request to May 31, 2019. See Docket No. 80. In extending the deadline to May 31, the

16

court cautioned that “[n]o further extension of this deadline should be expected,” id. at 2, and

17

21

explained in a footnote:
The court is concerned about the age of this case. During the course
of this action, plaintiff has ten times requested extensions or stays in
the proceedings. See Docket Nos. 13, 24, 29, 37, 54, 60, 63, 64, 73,
78. Although the court grants the requested extension of the deadline
to file the opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the
court’s patience with plaintiff’s repeated efforts to delay resolution
of this case has reached an end. This action will not be further
delayed.

22

Docket No. 80 at 2 n.1. Those cautionary words apparently fell on deaf ears, as plaintiff now requests

23

another extension of the deadline to file his opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

18
19
20

24

In his current request for an extension of the deadline, plaintiff recounts some of his other

25

litigation efforts and states that he is “diligently litigating many cases” and “does not have the

26

ability to choose what he wants to litigate.” Docket No. 85 at 2. He is wrong: he does have the

27

ability to choose what he litigates, and he has chosen to pursue other actions at this time rather

28

than devoting time to this action. Plaintiff has already had twelve weeks to prepare his opposition.

1

There is no reason to believe that, if the current request is granted, it will not be followed by even

2

more requests for even more extensions in this action so that plaintiff can spend his time pursuing

3

other litigation. Plaintiff’s choice to file new actions about other problems rather than to prepare

4

his opposition in this pending action does not support further extending the deadline in this action.

5

Plaintiff has not shown good cause for further extending the deadline to file his opposition to the

6

pending motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for an extension of the

7

deadline to file his opposition to the motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Docket No. 85.

8

The court will not entertain any more motions, requests or applications regarding the opposition

9

deadline.
Due to the press of other business, it will be about two weeks before the court will take up

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the motion for summary judgment. The court intends to turn its attention to the pending motion

12

for summary judgment on June 25, and will consider any opposition to the motion for summary

13

judgment that is on file at the courthouse by that date. Any opposition that arrives at the

14

courthouse after June 25, 2019, will be disregarded.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 11, 2019
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

MARIO TORRES,

Case No. 16-cv-06607-SI

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

MIKE HANSEN, et al.,
Defendants.

8
9
10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on June 11, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18

Mario Torres
4058 Treat Blvd.
Concord, CA 94518

19
20

Dated: June 11, 2019

21
22
23

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable SUSAN ILLSTON

27
28
3