Opinion
3:22-cv-05437-RSM-BAT
03-31-2023
JAMES EMANUEL DUDLEY III, Plaintiff, v. PIERCE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al., Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff moves to extend the time to respond to summary judgment. Dkt. 40. Plaintiff states on March 10, 2023, he sent Defendant requests for admission, and the Court should extend the time to respond to summary judgment because the Court earlier extended the time to complete discovery to May 4, 2023. Plaintiff is incorrect. On February 17, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff a second extension of the time to complete discovery and ordered all discovery requests be filed by March 6, 2023, and all discovery be completed by April 3, 2023. Dkt. 36. Plaintiff's March 10, 2023, request for admission is thus untimely, and not grounds to extend time to respond to summary judgment.
Plaintiff also indicates the Court should grant an extension because he “has limited time to Law Library Access.” Plaintiff is a pro se prisoner and thus the Court grants him leeway based upon this ground. The Court accordingly ORDERS:
1. Plaintiff's untimely request for admissions is not a ground to extend time to respond to summary judgment.
2. The Court grants in part Plaintiff's motion for extension. Dkt. 40. An extension of 30 days is granted because Plaintiff is a pro se prisoner with limited library access.
Plaintiff's response to summary judgment is due May 1, 2023, and the clerk shall renote Defendant's motion of summary judgment for May 5, 2023.
3. The clerk shall provide a copy of this order to the parties.