Amaker v. Lee

Background

Anthony D. Amaker, who was representing himself, filed a declaration opposing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and asked for more time to complete his response. The defendants are identified in the caption as C.O. R. Lieberman, C.O. Burzo, and C.O. Hoiston.

The court had previously set July 16, 2021, as the deadline for Amaker’s opposition papers. After additional requests, the court granted extensions through September 15, 2021, November 22, 2021, and finally April 25, 2022. The court warned that the last extension was the “absolute final extension.” Amaker did not serve his opposition papers by April 25 and did not timely request another extension before that deadline. The court then deemed the defendants’ summary-judgment motion fully submitted without Amaker’s opposition.

Court’s analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) permits a court to extend an expired deadline when the party shows good cause and excusable neglect. The court explained that extensions in procedural matters may be allowed when the delay is short, there is no bad faith or prejudice, and the excuse has some merit.

The court found that Amaker had repeatedly missed court deadlines and repeatedly made untimely extension requests. It also noted that the court had granted multiple extensions and clearly warned that April 25 was the final deadline. Amaker’s latest request relied on the same family-court legal dispute with a relative that he had cited in his prior request.

Ruling

Judge Nelson S. Roman denied Amaker’s request for an extension of time to oppose the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court also struck Amaker’s declaration in opposition as untimely and reaffirmed that the defendants’ summary-judgment motion had been submitted without opposition. The order did not decide the merits of that summary-judgment motion.