Opinion
Case No. 02-2482-JWL
May 7, 2003
MEMORANDUM ORDER
On March 28, 2003, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint (doc. #11). After plaintiff failed to file a response to defendant's motion within the time period provided in D. Kan. Rule 6.1(e)(2), the court issued an order to plaintiff directing her to show good cause on or before May 5, 2003 why she failed to respond to defendant's motion to dismiss in a timely fashion. The court further directed plaintiff to respond to defendant's motion to dismiss on or before May 5, 2003.
On May 5, 2003, plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed her response to the court's order to show cause in which she states that she was unable to draft a response to defendant's motion to dismiss without the assistance of counsel. Plaintiff further states that she has sought advice from an attorney who has indicated that he is willing to help plaintiff draft a response. Towards that end, plaintiff requests an additional 10 days to respond to defendant's motion.
While the court questions whether a litigant's inability to respond to a motion due to the litigant's pro se status is sufficient to constitute good cause to excuse the litigant's failure to respond to the motion, the court nonetheless will grant plaintiff a limited extension of time to respond to defendant's motion to dismiss. In doing so, the court finds that plaintiff, by responding to the order to show cause, has demonstrated an intent and desire to participate in the judicial process, that no interference with the judicial process has occurred, and that defendant will surely suffer no prejudice by a short extension of time. See Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 611 (10th Cir. 1998) (prior to outright dismissal for failure to comply with local court rules, court must consider the degree of actual prejudice to the defendant; the amount of interference with the judicial process; and the culpability of the litigant).
Plaintiff, then, is directed to file her response to defendant's motion to dismiss on or before Monday, May 19, 2003. The court, however, strongly cautions plaintiff that if she fails to file a response on or before May 19, 2003, then the court will consider defendant's motion as unopposed and, in all likelihood, will grant the motion and dismiss plaintiff's complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT plaintiff shall file a response to defendant's motion to dismiss on or before May 19, 2003.