ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME AND REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES

(Doc. Nos. 120, 128)

DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

On August 14, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file oppositions to the defendants' pending motions to dismiss, a request for continuance of the hearing date on the motions to dismiss currently set for September 5, 2018, and a request for continuance of the initial scheduling conference currently set for December 10, 2018. (Doc. No. 120.) On August 21, 2018, plaintiff filed a separate motion requesting an extension of time to file an opposition to defendant Schreiber's motion to stay this action. (Doc. No. 128.) According to plaintiff, an extension of time to file her oppositions is warranted because "[t]here simply [is] not enough time to be able to respond to all these motions" in the time period provided by the Local Rules. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff identifies other circumstances in support of her motion for extension of time, including upcoming deadlines in other state court proceedings, her inability to find permanent accommodations, her back injury, and her pro se status. (Id. at 1-3.) Plaintiff thus seeks a 90-day extension of time to file her opposition papers, and a minimum 90-day continuance of the hearing on the motions to dismiss and the initial scheduling conference. (Id. at 3-4.)

The court finds that the requested 90-day extension of time to file oppositions to the pending motions and a minimum 90-day continuance of the properly noticed hearings on those motions is unreasonable. It was plaintiff's choice to name dozens of defendants in this lawsuit, and she must bear the consequences of that choice. Good causing appearing, however, the court will continue the hearing on the pending motions to dismiss and motion to stay from September 5, 2018, to October 2, 2018. Deadlines for the filing of any oppositions or replies, as set out in Local Rule 230, shall apply to the continued hearing date. Furthermore, finding no reason at this time to continue the initial scheduling conference set for December 10, 2018, the court will deny plaintiff's request for continuance of that conference and it will remain as currently scheduled.

IT IS SO ORDERED.