KING v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Filing 46

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time 41 and his motion to modify the Court's Minute Order of January 26, 2017, and for judicial notice 43 are hereby DENIED. See attached document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 3/7/2017. (lcrdm2, ) Modified on 3/8/2017 (kt).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RICHARD ALAN KING,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 15-1445 (RDM)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff Richard Alan King’s fifth motion for an
extension of time, Dkt. 41, to respond to the Government’s motion to dismiss or for summary
judgment filed on March 3, 2016, Dkt. 26. King has also moved the Court to modify its minute
order of January 26, 2017, in which the Court ordered the government to provide a chart listing
how many of the preceding 365 days Plaintiff had been on lockdown. Minute Order, Jan. 26,
2017. The Court will deny both motions.
The Government filed its motion to dismiss or for summary judgment over a year ago, on
March 3, 2016. Dkt. 26. The next day, the Court entered an Order advising King of the need to
respond to the arguments in the Government’s motion, and allowing him until April 15, 2016 to
respond to the motion. Dkt. 27. Since that time, the Court has granted King four extensions of
time, giving him a total of 326 days—from March 3, 2016, until January 23, 2017—to respond to
the Government’s motion. See Minute Order, Nov. 9, 2016. In his latest motion, King asks the
Court to give him an extension of time “until further notice” because, he claims, the facility in

which he is incarcerated is frequently and without warning put on lockdown for indefinite
periods, during which time inmates have no access to the prison law library. Dkt. 41 at 2, 3.
The Court has already granted King four extensions of time. See Dkts. 31, 34, 37;
Minute Order, Nov. 9, 2016. In his first motion for an extension, filed on April 7, 2016, King
requested a 60-day extension because USP-I Coleman, where King is incarcerated, “is frequently
on lock-down or semi lock down for long periods of time during which prisoners have no access
whatsoever to the inmates law library, law clerks, or legal materials.” Dkt. 30 at 2. The Court
granted that motion on April 11, 2016, giving King until June 15, 2016 to respond. Dkt. 31. On
June 9, 2016, King again moved for a 60-day extension of time, and requested a “sequentially
paginated” copy of the Government’s motion and supporting exhibits, reflecting the “ordinary
markings of a legal document electronically filed.” Dkt. 33 at 2. The Court granted that motion
on June 13, 2016, giving King until August 15, 2016, to respond, and ordering the Clerk of Court
to send King a copy of the Government’s motion and supporting exhibits and a printout of the
public docket in this case. Dkt. 34. King next sought an extension on August 11, 2016, this time
for 90 days, again claiming that the copy of the Government’s motion he received “[did] not
show the clerk’s marking that would identify those documents as filed on the [r]ecord.” Dkt. 36
at 1. The Court again granted King’s motion, and directed the Clerk of Court to mail the relevant
documents to King, “including the CM/ECF header indicating that the motion and its supporting
affidavits and exhibits have been filed on the public docket,” as well as a printout of the public
docket. Dkt. 37 at 2. The Court noted that “[i]t is far from clear why Plaintiff needs a copy with
a header in order to respond to the government’s motion, and there is no basis to conclude that
the CM/ECF header has precluded Plaintiff from drafting his opposition and cross-motion,” but
nevertheless, “out of an abundance of caution,” granted King a 45-day extension, until October

2

7, 2016, to respond. Id. The Court cautioned King, however, that “[n]o further extensions of
time . . . will be granted absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances.” Id. at 3. King filed
his fourth extension motion on October 25, 2016. Dkt. 38. In that motion, he complained of
“extreme restrictions placed on access to typewriters, copiers, research library and other
neccesit[ies] to prepare and send legal pleadings,” which he argued “should constitute sufficient
exceptional circumstances to warrant one additional 90 day continuance.” Dkt. 3 at 17. The
Court, again acting out of an abundance of caution, granted King the full 90-day extension,
giving him until January 23, 2017, to respond. Minute Order, Nov. 9, 2016. This time, however,
the Court cautioned King that “[n]o further extensions w[ould] be granted.” Id.
In light of King’s current motion seeking an extension, which argues that frequent
lockdowns have prevented him from responding to the Government’s motion, the Court ordered
the Government to disclose how many days King had been on lockdown in the year preceding
the Court’s order. Minute Order, Jan. 26, 2017. As the Government’s response reveals, King
was on lockdown for 42 days between January 26, 2016, and January 26, 2017. Dkt. 42-1 at 1–
2. In the 90 days following the Court’s most recent Order granting King an extension on
November 9, 2016, King was on one lockdown that ended that day, and one additional lockdown
from January 6, 2017, to January 17, 2017. Id. at 2. Thus, counting only the most recent
extension period, King has had over 75 days to respond—more than five times as much time as
this Court’s Local Rules ordinarily provide for a response. See LCvR 7(b). In aggregate, King
had over 280 days when he was not on lockdown between the time the Government filed its
motion and the end of the final extension period. Even accepting that the Government’s tally did
not include occasional lockdowns “for short periods of time, typically an hour up to a few
hours,” Dkt. 2-1 at 2, King has had more than ample time to respond, and no further extension of

3

time is warranted. Accordingly, King’s fifth motion for an extension of time, and his motion to
require the Government to disclose further details about his lockdown status, are hereby
DENIED. King also asks the Court to take judicial notice of what he describes as “repeated
violations of Article 5 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” Dkt. 41 at
1, and of what appears to be a letter from King to the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights, id. at 6. Because King’s allegations regarding the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights are not relevant to this Freedom of Information Act case, the Court will also
DENY that motion.
King is advised that the Court intends promptly to resolve the pending motion to dismiss
or for summary judgment, and will do so on the basis of whatever papers are then before the
Court. See Dkt. 27.
SO ORDERED.

/s/ Randolph D. Moss
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
United States District Judge

Date: March 7, 2017

4