Bryant v. Cape Girardeau, County of et al

Filing 148

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 147 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 146 Order to Show Cause, filed by Plaintiff Matthew Glenn Bryant: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Matthew Glenn Bryant's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 147 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Matthew Glenn Bryant shall have until September 25th, 2020, to respond to the Court's Show Cause Order (Doc. 146 ). (Show Cause Response due by 9/25/2020.) Signed by District Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk on 09/14/20. (CMH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MATTHEW GLENN BRYANT,
Plaintiff,
v.
NED BOYD, U.S. Marshal for the Eastern
District of Missouri, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:18-CV-117-SEP

Memorandum and Order
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Matthew Glenn Bryant’s (“Bryant”) Motion
for Extension of Time (Doc. [147]). For the reasons stated below, Bryant’s motion is granted in
part.
On August 28, 2020, this Court ordered Bryant to show cause why this case should not be
dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Doc. [146]. The
Court’s order came after Bryant failed to comply with numerous Court orders and failed to
respond to various pending motions. Id. at 1. In the Order, the Court expressed concern that
Bryant might have been unaware of activity in this case. Id. at 2. The instant motion alleviates
that concern, but there remains the issue of Bryant’s failure to litigate his case.
Bryant requests an additional 90 days to respond to the Court’s Order. Doc. [147]. He
explains that his request is due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic as well as his lack of access to
an adequate law library. The Court is sympathetic with both issues, but the Court’s August 28th
Order required only that Bryant explain his repeated failures to comply—not that he make any
legal arguments requiring research. Doc. [146] at 2. Since he was able to draft and dispatch this

Motion for Extension of Time in time for it to reach the Court well in advance of the deadline, he
should likewise be able to draft and submit a brief explanation of his failures to respond to past
filings and provide the Court with assurance that he will resume litigating his case immediately.
If he wants to avoid dismissal of his case, he should do so without delay. Defendants should not
have to tolerate yet another lengthy delay before finding out whether Plaintiff plans to resume
litigating this lawsuit or allow it to be dismissed.
That said, given the constraints on Plaintiffs’ capacities and the time elapsed during
litigation of this Motion for Extension, the Court will grant Mr. Bryant one additional week to
respond to the Court’s August 28th Order.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Matthew Glenn Bryant’s Motion for
Extension of Time (Doc. [147]) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Matthew Glenn Bryant shall have until
September 25th, 2020, to respond to the Court’s Show Cause Order (Doc. [146]).

Dated this 14th day of September.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE