Slaughter v. White et al

Filing 51

ORDER denying plaintiff's 48 Motion for Extension of Time signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Ossie Slaughter, Prisoner ID: 827869)(RS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 OSSIE LEE SLAUGHTER, 10 Plaintiff, v. 11 12 CASE NO. C16-1067 RSM-JPD ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME DAN WHITE, et al., Defendants. 13 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Ossie L. Slaughter’s Motion for Extension 14 15 of Time to File Objections. Dkt. #48. On May 17, 2017, a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 16 was issued in this matter, allowing Plaintiff to file Objections no later than June 7, 2017. Dkt. #44 17 at 12. The R&R stated “[i]f no timely objections are filed, the matter will be ready for 18 consideration by the District Judge on June 9, 2017.” Id. No objections were received by June 9, 19 2017, and the Court issued its Order that day adopting the R&R. Dkt. #47. 20 On June 13, 2017, the Court received the instant Motion for Extension of Time via the 21 Court’s CM/ECF system. See Dkt. #48 at 1. Plaintiff is signed up for the prisoner e-filer system. 22 Plaintiff states that he sent this Motion via “email” on June 13, 2017. Id. Plaintiff’s Motion is 23 dated June 9, 2017. Dkt. #48 at 6. Plaintiff states that he was unable to draft Objections in a 24 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - 1 1 timely fashion because Defendants, inter alia, engaged in “egregious harassment,” “punitive 2 planned cell-confinements,” “tampering,” “planned targeting of Mr. Slaughters (sic) trays of food,” 3 and “planned sabotages and interference of his filed grievances, tort-claims, etc.” Dkt. #48 at 4. 4 Plaintiff at one point indicates that he “fell down stairs again,” and accuses prison staff of 5 “misconduct behavior and diabolical intent, as this is why Mr. Slaughter is forced to ware (sic) 6 medical shoes with large holes in them….” Id. at 6. 7 “A motion for relief from a deadline should, whenever possible, be filed sufficiently in 8 advance of the deadline to allow the court to rule on the motion prior to the deadline.” LCR 7(j). 9 Parties should not assume that the motion will be granted and must comply with the existing 10 deadline unless the court orders otherwise.” Id. 11 Plaintiff’s Motion was filed after the deadline in question and is therefore in violation of 12 Local Rule 7(j). The deadline to file Objections was June 7, 2017. The Court finds that Plaintiff 13 fails to present good cause for granting this extension after the deadline. Although some of the 14 issues discussed by Plaintiff could conceivably have caused a delay in his ability to file Objections, 15 Plaintiff fails to present convincing evidence that he was unable to prepare and file his Objections 16 within the three weeks allowed by the R&R. 17 Accordingly, the Court finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff Ossie L. Slaughter’s Motion for 18 Extension of Time to File Objections (Dkt. #48) is DENIED. This matter continues to be referred 19 to the Honorable James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge. 20 21 22 23 24 Dated this 14 day of June, 2017. A RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - 1

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?