Naessens v. Breslin

Full title: Michael Gerard Naessens, Plaintiff v. Frank Breslin, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, District of Nevada

Date published: Nov 1, 2022

2:22-cv-01473-JAD-VCF (D. Nev. Nov. 1, 2022)

Opinion

2:22-cv-01473-JAD-VCF

11-01-2022

Michael Gerard Naessens, Plaintiff v. Frank Breslin, et al., Defendants

JENNIFER A. DORSEY, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO EXTEND TIME

[ECF NOS. 15, 16]

JENNIFER A. DORSEY, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Pro se plaintiff Michael Gerard Naessens filed two motions to extend time to respond to defendant Andrew Barron's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.¹ He contends that Barron “committed perjury” in the motion to dismiss and asks the court to “provide an indefinite extension, or at least two weeks” more to file his response and to “file motions to deal with [Barron's alleged] perjury.”² Naessens also avers that he was “hospitalized on September 24th due to seizures associated with [his] disability,” which made it “difficult to communicate in a timely manner with the court.”³ But on October 25, 2022, Naessens filed an opposition to Barron's motion, which substantively responds to Barron's personal-jurisdiction arguments.⁴ In his response, Naessens requests “an opportunity to amend” it if it is “flawed due to [his] pro se [status] and the fact that [he] is still undergoing seizures due to [his] disability.”⁵

1 ECF No. 15 (motion to extend time); ECF No. 16 (emergency motion to extend time); ECF No. 7 (Barron's motion to dismiss).

2 ECF No. 15 at 4.

3 ECF No. 16 at 4, 5.

4 ECF No. 18.

5 Id. at 5.

Because Naessens filed a responsive opposition to Barron's motion to dismiss, I deny his motions to extend time as moot. And because Naessens does not identify any particular arguments in opposition that he would add or expand upon if given more time, I deny his request for an opportunity to amend. As for Naessens's request for an “indefinite extension” to file motions related to Barron's alleged perjury, that request is also denied. Naessens hasn't identified any court-imposed deadlines that are hampering his ability to file any motions that he believes are necessary to address his concerns. If Naessens is aware of a deadline that he wishes to extend, he must file a motion identifying that deadline and stating the reasons warranting an extension.

Naessens is also reminded that defendants Frank Breslin and Lawrence H. Richardson Jr. filed a separate motion to dismiss on October 25, 2022.⁶ Naessens's response to that motion is due by November 8, 2022.

6 ECF No. 17.

Conclusion

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff Michael Gerard Naessens's motions to extend time [ECF Nos. 15 and 16] are DENIED.