Fiedler v. State of Nebraska Department of Roads et al

Filing 154

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 152 Motion to Extend. Plaintiff shall have until November 1, 2011, to file a response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants' Objection 153 is denied. The court will not grant Plaintiff any additional extension of time to filed a response to the pending Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed/e-mailed to pro se party)(ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
EUGENE J. FIEDLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF NEBRASKA
DEPARTMENT OF ROADS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:08CV3144

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time.
(Filing No. 152.) In his Motion, Plaintiff requests an additional 60 days, until
November 1, 2011, to respond to Defendants’ pending Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Id.) Defendants oppose the Motion. (Filing No. 153.)
At the time Plaintiff filed this matter, he was represented by counsel. (Filing
No. 1.) However, on April 4, 2011, the court granted Plaintiff’s counsel leave to
withdraw, and Plaintiff has been representing himself since that time. (Filing No. 142
and 147 (text-only order).) The court has previously granted Plaintiff two lengthy
extensions of time in order to respond to the pending Motion for Summary Judgment.
(Filing No. 149 and 151 (text-only orders).) At the time it granted Plaintiff’s last
request for an extension of time, the court stated, “ NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS
OF TIME WILL BE GRANTED.” (Filing No. 151 (text-only order).)
In his Motion, Plaintiff requests a third extension of time because he is now in
possession of his files from his former attorney, Joy Schiffermiller, and has found
them to be “totally disorganized and possibly incomplete.” (Filing No. 152 at
CM/ECF p. 1.) Defendants oppose the Motion only because the court previously
stated that no further extensions of time would be granted. (Filing No. 153.) For
good cause shown, and because the record does not show that Plaintiff seeks this

extension for delay or any other improper purpose, the court will permit one
additional extension of time. However, under absolutely no circumstances will the
court grant an additional extension of time to respond, and Plaintiff is cautioned that
the court will proceed to rule on the merits of the pending Motion for Summary
Judgment on November 1, 2011, regardless of whether Plaintiff has filed a response.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (filing no. 152) is granted.
Plaintiff shall have until November 1, 2011, to file a response to Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment.
2.

Defendants’ Objection (filing no. 153) is denied.

3.

The court will not grant Plaintiff any additional extension of time to

filed a response to the pending Motion for Summary Judgment.
DATED this 16th day of September, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Chief United States District Judge

2