Linderman v. Cedeno et al

Filing 82

ORDER denying Plaintiff's third 80 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG; cc to Plaintiff)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

3
4
5

GARRETT LINDERMAN,

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,
NO. C10-5897 RBL/KLS

v.
RUBEN CEDENO, DEVON SCHRUM,
KAREN BRUNSON, TAMARA
ROWDEN, CAIN (FNU), SMITH
(FNU), CARROLL RIDDLE, T.
SCHNEIDER, McTARSNEY (FNU),
PALMER (FNU), MOSELY (FNU),
WINTERS (FNU), ASHTON (FNU),
NESBITT (FNU), MOHN (FNU),
MILLER (FNU), JANE/JOHN DOES,
and L. SCHNEIDER,

14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
THIRD MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants.

15

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion seeking a third extension of time to respond to

16

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 80. Defendants’ motion for summary

17

judgment was filed on March 1, 2013 and originally noted for March 29, 2013. ECF No. 70.

18

In his previous motion, Plaintiff cited to a lack of funds to pay for photocopies of documents,

19

lack of access to the law library, and difficulties getting declarations from his family and

20

friends. ECF No. 77. Defendants did not oppose Plaintiff’s previous requests for extensions.

21

ECF Nos. 74 and 78. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s latest request for additional time. ECF

22

No. 81.

23

DISCUSSION

24

Plaintiff now asserts for the first time in this latest motion that he requires a

25

declaration from “Dr. Thomas Ziegler” who is allegedly “an important witness to my mail

26

ORDER - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

claim opposition and the defendants’ retaliatory intent.” ECF No. 80, p. 5. Plaintiff does not
explain Dr. Ziegler’s involvement in his claims, why his testimony is necessary or material to
his response, or why Plaintiff could not provide the same evidence through his own
declaration or exhibits. Plaintiff also fails to explain why he failed to secure this testimony
during the nearly four months since Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff also states that he has had difficulties in obtaining postage and photocopying
“and other necessary components” to file his response. However, Plaintiff has apparently not
had the same difficulties in filing motions. He has filed three motions with supporting
declarations (ECF Nos. 73, 77, and 80) with this Court since Defendants filed their motion for
summary judgment.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
(1)

Plaintiff’s third motion for extension of time (ECF No. 80) is DENIED.

(2)

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

Defendants.

15
16

DATED this 10th day of July, 2013.

17

A

18

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER - 2