Curtis v. Benda, et al.

Filing 102

ORDER denying 97 Motion for Leave to File overlength response and granting Plaintiff's 99 Motion for Extension of Time to file a response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The 82 Defendants' MOTION for Summary Judgment Based on Absolute and Qualified Immunity and Memorandum in Support Thereof is re-noted for 4/9/2010. Order signed by Judge Karen L Strombom. (Copy mailed to Mr Curtis 2/24/2010)(PL)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA JAMES EDWARD CURTIS, No. C08-5109 FDB/KLS Plaintiff, v. TERRY J. BENDA, et al., Defendants. This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's "Motion for Leave to File Overlength Response to Dkt. # 82" (Dkt. 97), and a Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 99. Having considered the motions, the court finds and orders as follows: DISCUSSION Plaintiff's first motion, requesting leave to file a 185 page overlength brief, is essentially a motion for reconsideration of the court's Order granting Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's response and directing Plaintiff to file a response in compliance with Local Rule CR 7(h)(1). Dkt. 96. Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will ordinarily be denied in the "absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the Court's] attention earlier with reasonable diligence." Local Rule CR 7(h)(1). Here, Plaintiff has identified no error in the court's Order nor has he presented any new facts or legal authority suggesting that reconsideration is appropriate. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE - 1 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2010.

However, the court finds that a thirty day extension of time for Plaintiff to file his response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment is reasonable. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1) 2) Plaintiff's motion for leave to file overlength response (Dkt. 97) is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file a response to Defendants'

motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 99) is GRANTED; Plaintiff may file his response on or before April 5, 2010. 3) April 9, 2010. 4) Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 82) is renoted for April 9, Defendants are granted leave to reply to Plaintiff's replacement brief on or before

5)

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants.

DATED this

23rd day of February, 2010.

A

Karen L. Strombom United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE - 2