Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00471-DJS

Document 26

Filed 02/25/2004

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ISAAC L. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. : JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, : Defendant. : FEBRUARY 25, 2004 : : CIVIL NO. 3:03CV00471(DJS)

DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Pursuant to Rule 7(a), D. Conn. L. Civ. R., Defendant Postmaster General respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion For Extension Of Time, filed February 23, 2004 [docket no. 24]. (The caption of the motion The Motion should be

mistakenly refers to expert reports.)

denied because Plaintiff has not offered any justification for granting an extension beyond the 67 additional days he has already enjoyed. Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on November 24, 2003. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, never

responded, despite the express warning from the Court contained in the "Notice To Counsel and Pro Se Parties," ¶ 3, which was handed to Plaintiff when he commenced this action. attached.) (Copy

Moreover, the Defendant himself delivered the same

warning in his "Notice To Pro Se Plaintiff," which he filed with his dispositive motion. See Docket no. 16. By Notice dated

Case 3:03-cv-00471-DJS

Document 26

Filed 02/25/2004

Page 2 of 3

January 26, 2004, this Court gave Plaintiff a second chance. [Docket no. 21] The Notice provided that if Plaintiff did not

file his opposition by February 23, 2004, the motion may be granted and the complaint dismissed. On the due date, Plaintiff

filed the motion at issue, asking for an extension to March 3, 2004, to submit his opposition. The Plaintiff has failed to show that he is deserving of a third chance. In fact, he has presented no explanation or excuse

for failing to meet the Court's deadline, which provided a generous 67-day extension to begin with. Rule 6(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., permits enlargements of this sort for "cause shown." The local rule requires "good cause,"

and defines "good cause" as "a particularized showing that the time limitation in question cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." R. 7(b)2. D. Conn. L. Civ.

Plaintiff did not even bother trying to meet this The motion offers no

standard, and the motion should be denied.

statement of why the 67 additional days was not sufficient or how, in that interval, Plaintiff has exerted the required diligence in meeting the deadline. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for extension should be denied. Furthermore, as a result, the Court should

either (1) grant the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings in absence of opposition or (2) proceed to rule on the

-2-

Case 3:03-cv-00471-DJS

Document 26

Filed 02/25/2004

Page 3 of 3

merits of the motion and in turn grant the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Respectfully submitted, KEVIN J. O'CONNOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

CAROLYN A. IKARI ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 450 Main Street, Room 328 Hartford, Connecticut 06103 (860) 947-1101 Federal Bar No. ct13437

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the within and foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid, via first-class mail, this 25th day of February, 2004, to: Isaac L. Smith 40 Sycaway Street West Haven, Connecticut

06516 ________________________________ CAROLYN A. IKARI ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

-3-