Rothschild v. Wagstaffe et al

Filing 15

Order by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros denying 14 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF CIVIL LOCAL RULE 7 AND ENLARGMENT OF TIME.(bns, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MAYER AMSCHEL ROTHSCHILD,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 23-cv-05739-LJC

v.
STEPHEN WAGSTAFFE, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF CIVIL LOCAL RULE
7 AND ENLARGMENT OF TIME
Re: ECF No. 14

12
13

Plaintiff Mayer Amschel Rothschild, who is unrepresented, is proceeding in this action in

14

forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), meaning without any prepayment of fees or

15

security. See ECF No. 11. Now pending before the Court is Mr. Rothschild’s Motion for

16

Extension of Civil Local Rule 7 and Enlargement of Time (Motion). ECF No. 14. The filing is

17

comprised only of a proposed order granting the Motion and giving Mr. Rothschild a 60-day

18

extension. Id. As such, the Motion does not comply with Civil Local Rule 6-3’s requirements for

19

motions to enlarge or shorten time, which requires in part a supporting declaration under penalty

20

of perjury that “[s]ets forth with particularity the reasons for the requested enlargement or

21

shortening of time” and “[i]dentifies the substantial harm or prejudice that would occur if the

22

Court did not change the time.” Civil L.R. 6-3(a). More importantly, nowhere in the Motion does

23

Mr. Rothschild indicate what is the Court deadline for which he is seeking an extension.

24

The Court notes for the record that it previously set a deadline for March 1, 2024, so that

25

Mr. Rothschild could file an amended complaint in response to the Court’s screening order under

26

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). ECF No. 11. The Court directed Mr. Rothschild to fix several

27

deficiencies in the Complaint before the action would be allowed to proceed. To date, Mr.

28

Rothschild has yet to file an amended complaint. If this is the deadline Mr. Rothschild is referring

1

to in the Motion, then the Court finds there is not good cause to justify an order granting Mr.

2

Rothschild a 60-day extension to file an amended complaint. First, Mr. Rothschild claims that he

3

has experienced “health problems and issues that [have] caused a delay or inability to answer,”

4

ECF No. 14 at 11, but Mr. Rothschild has not set forth these purported facts as to his health issues

5

in a declaration under penalty of perjury, as required under Civil Local Rule 6-3(a).
Even setting aside this technical deficiency, and crediting Mr. Rothchild’s representation

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6
7

that he has had health problems during the time period he describes, these grounds are insufficient

8

to warrant an extension. Mr. Rothchild represents that he experienced an accident and underwent

9

emergency surgery on December 20, 2023, months before the March 1, 2024 deadline. ECF No.

10

14 at 1. Mr. Rothschild indicates there was a second emergency surgery as well, but the date of

11

when that second procedure took place is not specified. Id. at 2. The third surgery occurred on

12

March 27, 2024, more than three weeks after the deadline for Mr. Rothschild to file an amended

13

complaint had passed. Id. There is no explanation of how the timing of any of these procedures

14

or his recovery time interfered with his ability to comply with the March 1, 2024 deadline, or with

15

his ability to seek an extension in advance of that deadline. Moreover, Mr. Rothschild filed a

16

Motion for Permission to File Amended Complaint on February 21, 2024, which did not mention

17

any of these health problems. The Court ultimately denied the Motion for Permission to File

18

Amended Complaint that same day, and the denial order expressly stated that it did not disturb the

19

Court’s prior screening order, giving Mr. Rothchild until March 1, 2024 to file an amended

20

complaint that addressed the previously identified deficiencies in his Complaint. ECF Nos. 12,

21

13. Mr. Rothschild does not attempt to reconcile how his health problems and issues did not

22

interfere with his ability to file such a motion but did interfere with his ability to file an amended

23

complaint by March 1, 2024.

24

//

25

//

26

//

27
28

Unless specified otherwise, the Court refers to the PDF page number generated by the Court’s efiling system.
2
1

1

Accordingly, Mr. Rothschild’s Motion is hereby DENIED. The Court will issue a

2

separate order as to the question of whether Mr. Rothschild can proceed with prosecuting this case

3

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 28, 2024

6
7
LISA J. CISNEROS
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3