Wood v. Bassett, 1:19-cv-00100-JLT. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20191002g56
Visitors: 7
Filed: Sep. 30, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 30, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . On September 13, 2019, the Court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for the failure comply with the Court's orders and the failure to prosecute the action and to serve his initial disclosures. (Doc. 24.) In response, Plaintiff requests an extension of time until February 2020, as he has done previously. (Doc. 25.) He indicates in his most recent filing that his relea
Summary: ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . On September 13, 2019, the Court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for the failure comply with the Court's orders and the failure to prosecute the action and to serve his initial disclosures. (Doc. 24.) In response, Plaintiff requests an extension of time until February 2020, as he has done previously. (Doc. 25.) He indicates in his most recent filing that his releas..
More
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
On September 13, 2019, the Court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for the failure comply with the Court's orders and the failure to prosecute the action and to serve his initial disclosures. (Doc. 24.) In response, Plaintiff requests an extension of time until February 2020, as he has done previously. (Doc. 25.) He indicates in his most recent filing that his release date is now November 30, 2019. (Doc. 25.)
The Court has previously determined in response to Plaintiff's prior requests to extend deadlines to after his release date "that Plaintiff's anticipated release date did not support his request to extend any deadlines in the action, which Plaintiff chose to commence despite his in-custody status." (Doc. 20 at 2; Doc. 24 at 1.) As the Court has already stated, when the Plaintiff filed this litigation, he knew he would be in custody and, seemingly, understood that there would be burdens on prosecuting this action while in jail. Despite this, he chose to proceed. The fact that he has now confronted these burdens does not support his request to extend any deadlines in this case any more than his anticipated release date does so. The Plaintiff may either dismiss this action or prosecute and comply with the case deadlines. Therefore, the Plaintiff's request is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
