1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

WILLIAM DAVENPORT,

Plaintiff,

v.

HENRY RICHARDS, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5334RJB-KLS

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME ON

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE

PLEADINGS

This matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), Local Magistrates Rules MJR 3 and 4, and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The case is before the Court on plaintiff’s filing of a motion for an extension of time (Dkt. #39) on

defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. #35). After reviewing plaintiff’s motion,

defendants’ response thereto and the balance of the record, the Court finds and orders as follows:

Defendants filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(c) on February 4, 2008, which was noted for consideration on February 29, 2008. In that

motion, defendants argue that defendant Sarah Sappington should be dismissed from this case based on

prosecutorial immunity, that the Court should decline to discipline defendant Sappington for alleged

ethical violations because it lacks the authority to do so, that plaintiff’s claims that his constitutional

rights under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act should be dismissed because there is

no private right of action thereunder, and that certain of plaintiff’s state law claims are barred by the

Case 3:06-cv-05334-RJB Document 42 Filed 03/27/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

statute of limitations. (Dkt. #35). 

On February 27, 2008, plaintiff filed his motion for an extension of time, which was noted for

March 14, 2008. Plaintiff contends in his motion that he needs more time to prepare for and respond to

those arguments. Specifically, plaintiff states that he has no one helping him with this case or access to

legal resources, that he has contracted a medical impairment that damaged his right eye thereby limiting

his ability to read and write, that he needs more time to brief the Court for appointment of counsel given

this change in his health, that he did his best to effect service on defendants, and that no defendant should

be dismissed prior to the completion of discovery. (Dkt. #39). 

In response to plaintiff’s motion, defendants argue that none of the reasons plaintiff has stated for

seeking an extension of time are valid. Specifically, they point out that, like other residents at the Special

Commitment Center, plaintiff has access to adequate legal resources, that plaintiff has made no showing

regarding the alleged effects of his medical condition on his ability to respond to their motion or made

any prior effort to inform them of this condition or those effects, that discovery is not relevant here

because a motion for judgment on the pleadings is based on the pleadings alone, and that plaintiff has

waited until the day prior to their motion’s filing date to file his motion. (Dkt. #40). Plaintiff has filed no

reply to defendants’ response. 

The Court agrees with defendants that not only has plaintiff failed to provide valid and supported

reasons for seeking an extension of time here, his motion for an extension of time should have been filed

prior to the due date for filing his response to defendants’ motion, and thus is not well-taken. On the

other hand, given plaintiff’s pro se status, it does not seem feasible to require that plaintiff file an

immediate response to defendants’ motion as defendants request. Nevertheless, the amount of additional

time the Court is willing to grant plaintiff to file such a response will be strictly limited. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Dkt. #39) hereby is GRANTED to the

following extent. Plaintiff shall file a response to defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings by

no later than April 28, 2008. Plaintiff is warned that he will not be granted any further extension of

time to respond to defendants’ motion without an actual showing of good cause. Failure to make

such a showing will be treated as a failure to respond, and the Court will review defendants’ motion

as if no response had been filed. Defendants’ shall file a reply, if any, to plaintiff’s response by no later

than May 1, 2008. The Clerk shall re-note defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. #35)

Case 3:06-cv-05334-RJB Document 42 Filed 03/27/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 3

for consideration on May 2, 2008. 

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff and counsel for defendants.

DATED this 27th day of March, 2008.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05334-RJB Document 42 Filed 03/27/08 Page 3 of 3