Coleman v. Pearson
- Jeffrey White
- 4:20-cv-04762
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Coleman v. Pearson, Judge White granted Coleman a final deadline extension to explain service failures and seek reopening.
Wendell Coleman, who was proceeding without a lawyer; the case would remain closed if he did not meet the extended deadline.
What happened
In Coleman v. Pearson, the court had ordered Wendell Coleman to explain why he did not obtain a summons or serve the defendants, and why the case should be reopened. His response was due February 4, 2022.
Before that deadline, Coleman sent the court a letter asking for more time and reporting a temporary address change. He also referred to two other cases and said he could not make three copies of a motion.
Judge White granted Coleman one final extension, giving him until April 1, 2022, to respond. The court said no further extensions would be granted and that the case would remain closed, with no further filings considered, if he did not comply.
The detailed version
- Coleman v. Pearson · No. 4:20-cv-04762
- Jeffrey White
- Feb. 9, 2022
Background
Wendell Coleman was proceeding without a lawyer. The court had previously issued a final order requiring him to explain three issues: why he did not obtain a summons when he filed the complaint, why he had not served the defendants as of September 24, 2020, and why the court should extend the deadline for service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and reopen the case. The response was due February 4, 2022. The court had stated that if it did not receive a response by that date, the case would remain closed.
Coleman’s Request
On February 3, 2022, the court received a letter from Coleman requesting more time and notifying the court of a temporary change of address. The letter also referred to two other cases in the district and stated that Coleman needed to file a motion in each case but could not make three copies of the motion.
Ruling
The court granted Coleman one final extension of time to respond to its order. He was required to file his response by April 1, 2022, addressing the summons, service, and requested extension of the service deadline so that the court could consider reopening the case. The court stated that it would not grant any further extensions. If Coleman failed to comply, the case would remain closed and the court would not consider additional filings from him.
Disposition and Classification
This was a procedural order concerning the deadline to respond and the possible reopening of the case. It did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.