Torresv.Hansen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAJun 11, 2019
Case No. 16-cv-06607-SI (N.D. Cal. Jun. 11, 2019)

Case No. 16-cv-06607-SI

06-11-2019

MARIO TORRES, Plaintiff, v. MIKE HANSEN, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 85

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 8, 2019. Plaintiff's opposition to that motion originally was due on April 5, 2019, and the deadline was later extended at plaintiff's request to May 31, 2019. See Docket No. 80. In extending the deadline to May 31, the court cautioned that "[n]o further extension of this deadline should be expected," id. at 2, and explained in a footnote:

The court is concerned about the age of this case. During the course of this action, plaintiff has ten times requested extensions or stays in the proceedings. See Docket Nos. 13, 24, 29, 37, 54, 60, 63, 64, 73, 78. Although the court grants the requested extension of the deadline to file the opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the court's patience with plaintiff's repeated efforts to delay resolution of this case has reached an end. This action will not be further delayed.

Docket No. 80 at 2 n.1. Those cautionary words apparently fell on deaf ears, as plaintiff now requests another extension of the deadline to file his opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

In his current request for an extension of the deadline, plaintiff recounts some of his other litigation efforts and states that he is "diligently litigating many cases" and "does not have the ability to choose what he wants to litigate." Docket No. 85 at 2. He is wrong: he does have the ability to choose what he litigates, and he has chosen to pursue other actions at this time rather than devoting time to this action. Plaintiff has already had twelve weeks to prepare his opposition. There is no reason to believe that, if the current request is granted, it will not be followed by even more requests for even more extensions in this action so that plaintiff can spend his time pursuing other litigation. Plaintiff's choice to file new actions about other problems rather than to prepare his opposition in this pending action does not support further extending the deadline in this action. Plaintiff has not shown good cause for further extending the deadline to file his opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, plaintiff's request for an extension of the deadline to file his opposition to the motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Docket No. 85. The court will not entertain any more motions, requests or applications regarding the opposition deadline.

Due to the press of other business, it will be about two weeks before the court will take up the motion for summary judgment. The court intends to turn its attention to the pending motion for summary judgment on June 25, and will consider any opposition to the motion for summary judgment that is on file at the courthouse by that date. Any opposition that arrives at the courthouse after June 25, 2019, will be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 11, 2019

/s/_________


SUSAN ILLSTON


United States District Judge