The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT
ORDER DEEMING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. 23) TO BE PLAINTIFF'S OPENING BRIEF AND DIRECTING THE CLERK TO SERVE THE DOCUMENT ON DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL
ORDER SETTING DUE DATES FOR DEFENDANT'S BRIEF AND ANY REPLY BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF
Defendant's Brief: Due in 45 Days
Plaintiff's Reply: Due 30 days after Defendant's brief is served on Plaintiff
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and pro se with a civil action in this Court. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(15) and 72-303.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's response, filed October 31, 2008, to the Court's order of October 20, 2008, that issued to Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to file a timely opening brief on October 8, 2008. Also pending is Plaintiff's request for an extension of time within which to file an opening brief, filed on November 19, 2008, and matter which Plaintiff apparently intends to have the Court consider to be Plaintiff's opening brief.
I. Discharge of Order to Show Cause
Plaintiff explained his failure to file a timely opening brief by stating that he had sent to the Court a typed letter in which he had requested an extension of time before July 25, 2008; it is not stated precisely what deadline was requested to be extended. In another letter dated August 17, 2008, he requested information concerning the status of his case. Both letters were answered by notices which stated that the clerk could not respond in writing to inquiries, and that the Court would notify him of the actions taken in his case, including if he had not submitted a document required in his case. (Doc. 22, p. 3.)
Plaintiff's failure to file a timely opening brief is not excused by his informal correspondence with the Court. According to Plaintiff's explanation, he failed to serve on Defendant and to file with the Court a document entitled a request for an extension of time; instead, he simply wrote to the Court in letter form, and it does not appear that he specified that he sought an extension of time to file his opening brief. He thus failed to ask the Court in a recognizable, formally acceptable manner for the specific relief needed in order to avoid his being in default of his obligations as specified in the Court's scheduling order that issued on February 5, 2008.
Further, the Court notes that in his letter of August 17, 2008, received by the Court on August 21, 2008, Plaintiff asked what was due, and when, following the scheduling order. The scheduling order was served on Plaintiff, however, so it would not appear that the inquiry was necessary.
Nevertheless, in view of Plaintiff's attempts to comply with the Court's orders, the order to show cause that issued on ...