Saepoff v. Riehle et al

Filing 34

ORDER granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's 33 Motion for an extension of time; her deadline to respond to the order to show cause is extended to 5/12/17 by Judge James L. Robart.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

JESSICA SAEPOFF,
Plaintiff,

11
v.
12
13

ORDER EXTENDING
DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

JAY RIEHLE, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

CASE NO. C17-0482JLR

Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Jessica Saepoff’s motion for an extension of

16

time to respond to the court’s order to show cause. (MFE (Dkt. # 33).) On April 21,

17

2017, the court denied Ms. Saepoff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief and

18

ordered her to show cause by May 5, 2017, why the court should not dismiss her claims

19

against the Internal Revenue Service-affiliated defendants for lack of subject matter

20

jurisdiction. (4/21/17 Order (Dkt. # 22) at 8-9.) In light of her pro se status and the

21

“huge amount of research into complex issues” that Ms. Saepoff states she must perform,

22

she seeks a 30-day extension of the deadline to respond to the court’s order. (MFE at 2.)

ORDER - 1

1

In its order to show cause, the court thoroughly discussed the statute and case law

2

that appears to oust the court of subject matter jurisdiction over her claims against the

3

governmental defendants. (4/21/17 Order at 6-7.) The two weeks that the court afforded

4

Ms. Saepoff to respond to its order already contemplated her pro se status and the

5

complexity of the legal issues involved. Furthermore, Ms. Saepoff has filed a 28-page

6

complaint and two motions for preliminary injunctive relief of more than 20 pages. (See

7

Compl. (Dkt. # 1); TRO Mot. (Dkt. # 6); Am. TRO Mot. (Dkt. # 20).) She asserts both

8

constitutional and statutory claims. (See generally Compl.) She sues 10 named

9

defendants, which consist of governmental and private entities, and a series of Doe

10

defendants. (See id. at 1.) In other words, any legal or logistical complexity in this case

11

is of Ms. Saepoff’s own making.
Nevertheless, in light of Ms. Saepoff’s pro se status and Defendants’

12
13

non-opposition (see MFE at 2), the court GRANTS in part her motion for an extension of

14

time (Dkt. # 33) and extends her deadline to respond to the order to show cause by one

15

week, to May 12, 2017. Defendants may, but are not required to, respond to the order to

16

show cause by that date. (See 4/21/17 Order at 9.) This extension does not impact Ms.

17

Saepoff’s deadlines to respond to the pending motions to dismiss (Dkt. ## 13, 28, 29),

18

//

19

//

20

//

21

//

22

//

ORDER - 2

1
2

and the court will not look favorably upon any request to extend those deadlines.
Dated this 3rd day of May, 2017.

3
4

A

5

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3