Holmberg v. Warner et al

Filing 56

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 54 Motion for Extension of Time; denying 55 Motion for Reconsideration.(TG; cc mailed to plaintiff)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7

8 MICHAEL HOLMBERG,
9

Plaintiff,

10

CASE NO. C13-5069 BHS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS

v.

11 BERNARD WARNER,
12

Defendant.

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Michael Holmberg’s

15 (“Holmberg”) motion for extension of time (Dkt. 54) and motion for reconsideration
16 (Dkt. 55).
17

On July 8, 2013, the Court adopted a Report and Recommendation dismissing

18 Holmberg’s claims because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Dkt. 8. The
19 next day, the Clerk entered judgment against Holmberg. Dkt. 9. On August 8, 2013, a
20 Notice of Appeal was filed. Dkt. 45. On September 26, 2013, Holmberg filed a motion
21 for relief from judgment and motion for indicative ruling requesting that the Court vacate
22 its original judgment based on newly discovered evidence. Dkts. 48 & 49. On October

ORDER - 1

1 4, 2013, the Government responded. Dkt. 50. On October 10, 2013, the Court denied
2 Holmberg’s motions. Dkt. 52. On October 17, 2013, Holmberg filed a motion for
3 extension of time to reply to the Government’s response. Dkt. 54. On October 21, 2013,
4 Holmberg filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying Holmberg’s
5 motions. Dkt. 55.
6

With regard to the motion for an extension of time, Holmberg requests additional

7 time to file a reply because he has limited access to the law library. Dkt. 54. The Court,
8 however, found that a reply brief was unnecessary and ruled on the motion before a reply
9 brief was filed. Holmberg argues that the early ruling deprived him of his “right of free
10 speech, redress and due process of law in relation to [his] motions, resulting in
11 prejudice.” Dkt. 55 at 1. These arguments are without merit. Holmberg essentially
12 disagrees with the Court’s dispositive ruling and final judgment. Holmberg may appeal
13 these issues, which he has done. On the other hand, filing multiple frivolous post14 judgment motions is an improper attack on the rulings and a waste of resources.
15 Therefore the Court DENIES Holmberg’s motions.
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated this 18th day of November, 2013.

A

18
19

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

20
21
22

ORDER - 2