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)

Download PDF
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

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?