Jablonski v. Martin et al

Filing 36

ORDER granting in part 35 Motion For Extension of Time. Plaintiff shall have up to and including February 2, 2016 to file his amended complaint. Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint on or before February 2, 2016 could result in Plaintiff's case being dismissed for lack of prosecution. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 1/19/2016. (ANW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
EDWARD J. JABLONSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:15-cv-383-FtM-38CM

CHRISTOPHER W. MARTIN,
TODD M. LONERGAN and
MARTIN, DISIERE, JEFFERSON
& WISDOM,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 35), filed on
January 12, 2016. Plaintiff stated that he spoke with Defendant’s counsel who does
not oppose an extension. Doc. 35 at 1. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s
motion is granted in part.
It appears that Plaintiff, pro se, seeks a 60-90-day extension to file his amended
complaint.

Doc. 35 at 1.

As grounds, Plaintiff states that he is suffering from

medical issues and he is attempting to get an attorney. Id. at 1-2.
On November 6, 2015, United States District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell
granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Doc. 20. Judge
Chappell directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before November 20,
2015. Id. at 7. Plaintiff later filed a motion for extension of time requesting 30
additional days to file his amended complaint. Doc. 27. The undersigned granted
Plaintiff’s motion and allowed Plaintiff until December 21, 2015 to file his amended

complaint.

Doc. 28.

Plaintiff then filed another motion for extension of time

requesting 90 days to file an amended complaint.

Doc. 33.

The Court was not

inclined to allow Plaintiff an additional 90-days but the Court gave Plaintiff until
January 15, 2016 to file his amended complaint. Doc. 34. Now, Plaintiff seeks an
additional 60-90 days to file an amended complaint. Doc. 35. While the motion is
unopposed, the Court finds that the time period requested is excessive and is not
inclined to grant a 60-90-day extension.

The Court will allow Plaintiff a final

extension of up to and including February 2, 2016 to file his amended complaint.
The Court will not be inclined, however, to grant additional extensions beyond that
provided by this Order absent extenuating circumstances. Plaintiff has had since
November 6, 2015 to file an amended complaint. With this additional extension,
Plaintiff will have had nearly 90 days to file his amended complaint. This case must
continue to move forward. Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint on or
before February 2, 2016 could result in Plaintiff’s case being dismissed for lack of
prosecution.
The Court also encourages Plaintiff to retain a lawyer.

Should Plaintiff

continue to proceed pro se, the Court reminds Plaintiff that before preparing any
further pleadings, Plaintiff is encouraged to visit the “Proceeding Without a Lawyer”
section of this Court’s website at www.flmd.uscourts.gov. The website includes tips,
frequently asked questions, sample forms, and a “Guide for Proceeding Without a
Lawyer.” Plaintiff is informed that if he chooses to proceed pro se, it is mandatory
that he proceed in accordance with Federal and Local Rules. Loren v Sasser, 309

-2-

F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002) (noting that despite certain leniency afforded pro se
parties, they must follow procedures).
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 35) is GRANTED in part.
Plaintiff shall have up to and including February 2, 2016 to file his amended
complaint. Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint on or before February 2,
2016 could result in Plaintiff’s case being dismissed for lack of prosecution.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 19th day of January,
2016.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-3-