William Thomas, et. al. | C.A. No. 94-2742 Plaintiffs pro se, | Judge Charles R. Richey | v. | | The United States, et. al. | Defendants. |
possible way. In fact, in view of the Plaintiffs' pro se status, the Court in this case has made every attempt to accommodate the Plaintiffs as much as reasonably possible. As the Plaintiffs acknowledge, the Court has expedited the briefing schedule at the Plaintiffs' behest, Joint Motion at 2, while at the same time repeatedly excusing the Plaintiffs~ inability to meet pleading deadlines. Since January 6, 1995, the Plaintiffs have filed six motions seeking extensions of time. Not one of these has been denied. The Defendants, in contrast, have sought only one such extension. Thus, the Court observes that the Plaintiffs' suggestion that the Court has somehow favored the Defendants with "generous extensions is simply inaccurate.
the same document.
"left much to the imagination." Plaintiffs' Motion for Clear Notice, at 2 n.2. While the Plaintiffs suggest that the Court's Clerk somehow failed to accommodate the Plaintiffs properly, the Clerk was, in fact, extending a special courtesy which the Court does not, and shall not, extend to every litigant with respect to every Order it issues. Moreover, the Court obsenres that, upon receiving only part of a document by facsimile, it is obviously incumbent on that person to call the sender and inform him or her that the entire document was not received, as a problem may have occurred in the processing by fax. Thus, the Plaintiffs have shown no error whatsoever on the part of the Court's very able Deputy Clerk.
so where, as here, the alleged "emergency circumstances" constitute a request for an extension of time by the very litigants who now inappropriately assert that the Court "may feel that, unlike the U.S. Attorney, the undersigned hasn't anything more pressing to do than bother this honorable Court with frivolous requests for extensions ." Id. at 3. Indeed, the Court has gone well beyond its normal practice with respect to the instant Plaintiffs, who apparently fail to appreciate that scores of other parties also have pressing needs which must compete for the Court's limited time and resources.
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Denial of the TRO, or Alternatively to Dismiss the Complaint as Frivolous, and Defendants' Motion for Stay of Discovery Pending Resolution of the Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. " [2] As explained above, the Plaintiffs sought an extension until January 31, 1995 in which to file said Reply, and the Court granted an extension until February 2, 1995. In an Order entered January 27, 1995, the Court granted the Plaintiffs "Motion for Leave to File Out of Time Plaintiffs' Response to the United States' Motion to Dismiss," affording the Plaintiffs until February 3, 1995 to file said Opposition, and directing the Defendants to file any Reply thereto on or before February 9, 1995. In their instant Motion, the Plaintiffs take "strong exception" to the Court's requiring them to Reply to one Motion by February 2, 1995, while allowing the Defendants to file a Reply to another Motion by February 9, 1995.
if the Court reconsidered its Order of February 1, 1995 and ORDERED both parties to file whatever Replies, Oppositions, or Motions they like (consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of course) by 4:00 p.m. February 9, 1995 . " Motion for Reconsideration, at 4. This request is extreme. The record reveals that, while the Plaintiffs have repeatedly sought extensions of time and received even more generous extensions than those requested, they now complain that the extensions granted were improper and impartial. They also complain that, rather than assuming that a Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions was to be treated as an Opposition to a Motion to Dismiss, the Court improperly granted the Plaintiffs more time to file yet another pleading in Opposition to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Court is, in short, losing its patience with the Plaintiffs. The Motion shall be denied to the extent that it seeks reconsideration of the Court's Order of February 1, 1995. As indicated above, however, the Court shall grant the Plaintiffs' instant "Motion for Leave to File Out of Time Replies to the Documents Filed by Defendants on January 24, 1995," such that the Plaintiffs shall have until February 13, 1995 to file the Reply in question anyway.
of their application for a TRO:sua sponte
of Plaintiffs' Application for a TRO or alternatively, to Dismiss the Complaint as Frivolous; and it is