Lloyd v. Yankey et al

Filing 41

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 31 Second Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to 23 Motion to Dismiss, which shall be considered as currently noted, signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom. (GMR- cc: pltf)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6
7
8

LARRY LLOYD,
No. C12-5913 RJB/KLS
Plaintiff,
v.

9
10
11

BRIAN YANKEY, JOHN DOE, P.A.
JOHNSON, BRUCE KALER, SUE
STEVEN,

ORDER DENYING SECOND
EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO
MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants.

12
13

Defendant Brian Yankey filed a motion to dismiss on January 31, 2012. ECF No. 23.

14

Two weeks after his deadline to respond, Plaintiff requested and was granted a forty-five (45)

15

day extension of time to file his response and the motion to dismiss was re-noted for April 12,

16

2013. ECF Nos. 27 and 28. On March 20, 2013, Plaintiff requested that the Court send him a

17
18
19
20

copy of his complaint. ECF No. 30. He did not request a copy of the pending motion to
dismiss. The Clerk sent Plaintiff a copy of his complaint, without cost, on March 21, 2013.
On April 1, 2013, Plaintiff obtained another copy of Defendants’ motion from the Kitsap

21

County Prosecutor’s office. ECF No. 35 (Declaration of Carrie Bruce, Exhibit B). Plaintiff

22

now seeks an additional continuance due to the prosecutor’s “delay and failure to forward a

23

copy of Defendants’ motion to dismiss.” ECF No. 31, p. 1. However, the docket reflects that

24
Plaintiff was served with Defendant Yankey’s motion a full week before he was arrested and
25
26

booked into the Kitsap County Jail on February 7, 2013. ECF No. 35 (Declaration of Carrie
Bruce, Exhibit A). Moreover, in his first motion for extension, Plaintiff conceded that he was in
ORDER - 1

1

possession of Defendant’s motion, had reviewed it, and was aware of its contents. ECF No. 27,

2

p. 3.

3
4

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has failed to show good
cause for yet another extension of Defendant Yankey’s motion to dismiss. See Fed.R.Civ.P.

5
6(b)(1).
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
(1)

Plaintiff’s second motion for an extension (ECF No. 31) is DENIED. Defendant

Yankey’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 23) shall be considered as currently noted.
(2)

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

Defendants.
DATED this 22nd day of April, 2013.

13

A

14
15

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER - 2