DAVIS et al v. YATES et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 10 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 8/3/16. (sr, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DARRYL DAVIS and STEVEN GROHS,

No. 15-cv-6943 (KM)(JBC)

Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM and ORDER

V.

SHERRY YATES, SARAH DAVIS, NEW
JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, SCO JOHN DOE,
Defendants.
KEVIN MCNULTY, U.S.D.J.:

THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court by Plaintiffs Darryl Davis
and Steven Grohs on their motion (ECF’ no. 10) to file a motion for
reconsideration out of time, and for reconsideration of this Court’s order
of
October 13, 2015 (ECF no. 6) granting the defendants a 30 day extens
ion of
their time to answer or otherwise move in response to the complaint.
Had I
considered plaintiffs’ opposition (ECF no. 7) and denied the extens
ion request,
they argue, they could have moved for a default judgment and prevail
ed in this
action.
I will grant leave to file a motion for reconsideration out of time. That
said, the motion for reconsideration will be denied. Plaintiff, althoug
h
appearing pro se, is a frequent federal court litigant. He is surely
aware that a
30-day extension of time to answer is a simple application, and one
routinely
granted. Indeed, a 14-day extension is available as of right, withou
t a motion,
upon request to the clerk. Loc. Civ. R. 6.1(b). Absent truly extraor
dinary
circumstances, no plaintiff is going to prevail on the merits and
obtain a
default judgment because an answer was late by 30 days—and in
this case it
was not late, because an extension was sought and granted. I recogn
ize that
1

the papers may have crossed in the mails (plaintiffs are paper filers who do not
have access to the ECF system), but there is no reason to think that the
extension would have been denied, or that any cognizable prejudice resulted.
Out of caution, I have examined the plaintiffs’ opposition to the extension
request. I see no basis therein on which I would have denied the extension.
Accordingly, the Court having considered the papers before it, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b), for the reasons stated in the foregoing
Opinion, and for good cause shown:
IT IS this 3d day of August, 2016,
ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ motion (ECF no. 10) to file their motion for
reconsideration out of time is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (ECF no. 10) is
DENIED and that the court’s order of October 13, 2015, granting defendants a
30 day extension of time to move or answer remains in place.

/6J

KVIN MCNULTY
United States District J

2

ge