WIDI v. MCNEIL et al

Filing 233

ORDER granting 222 Motion to Extend Time to File Reply to Responses to Motion for Reconsideration. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
DAVID J. WIDI, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL MCNEIL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-00188-JAW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE REPLY
The background of this Order typifies the inordinate difficulty the Court has
had in resolving David J. Widi, Jr.’s claims. On November 18, 2013, Mr. Widi filed
a Second Amended Complaint with the Court. Second Am. Compl. (ECF No. 191).
The next day, the Magistrate Judge struck the Second Amended Complaint on the
ground that the new pleading was not accompanied by a motion or memorandum
and that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), at that stage in the
litigation, Mr. Widi was required to obtain written consent of the other party or
court approval before the pleading would be allowed. Order (ECF No. 192). On
December 13, 2013, Mr. Widi moved for reconsideration of the Order striking his
Second Amended Complaint. Mot. for Recons. (ECF No. 197). On December 31,
2013, Defendant Paul McNeil filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration.
McNeil’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Recons. Mot. (ECF No. 202). On January 3, 2014, Defendant
TD Bank, N.A. filed its opposition. Def. TD Bank, N.A.’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot for

Recons. of Magistrate’s Order Striking the Proposed Second Am. Compl. (ECF No.
203).
On January 13, 2014, Mr. Widi moved to stay this case because he was being
transferred from Federal Correctional Institute (FCI) Ray Brook, New York to FCI
Berlin, New Hampshire. Mot. to Stay (ECF No. 207). On January 14, 2014, the
Magistrate Judge granted the motion in part and denied it in part, extending any
response that he would have to make to a pending pleading by sixty days or twentyone days after receipt of his new address, whichever occurred first. Order (ECF No.
208). On February 3, 2014, Mr. Widi notified the Court of his change of address but
also requested a further stay until he received his legal material. Notice of Change
of Address (ECF No. 209). On February 4, 2014, the Magistrate Judge granted in
part and denied in part his motion to extend stay, ordering him to file pleadings
regarding any pending motion by March 14, 2014. Order (ECF No. 211). On March
14, 2014, Mr. Widi filed a motion to extend time by an additional thirty days to file
his reply to the responses to his motion for reconsideration, saying that he had not
yet been provided with his legal work. Mot. to Extend Time to File (ECF No. 222).
He stated that he had been placed in the Special Housing Unit and did not have
access to his legal work. Id. at 1.
The upshot is that Mr. Widi has not yet filed a reply to the responses to his
motion for reconsideration of an order dated November 13, 2014. The Court grants
his March 14, 2014 motion to extend time for thirty days.

To account for the

“mailbox rule,” FED. R. CIV. P. 6(d), the Court extends the time for filing the reply to

2

April 18, 2014. Ultimately, the Court has been able to reach and resolve Mr. Widi’s
motions, but this motion explains why justice in his cases is often delayed.
The Court GRANTS David J. Widi, Jr.’s Motion to Extend Time to File (ECF
No. 222); David J. Widi, Jr.’s reply to the responses to his motion for reconsideration
must be filed with this Court no later than April 18, 2014.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 10th day of April, 2014

3