Order on Page Limits and Extension of Time — Wall v. CDC

Full text

Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 228 Filed 02/15/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 6613




                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
                                ORLANDO DIVISION
 LUCAS WALL,

                       Plaintiff,

 v.                                                              Case No: 6:21-cv-975-PGB-DCI

 CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL
 & PREVENTION, DEPARTMENT OF
 HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES,
 GREATER ORLANDO AVIATION
 AUTHORITY and CENTRAL
 FLORIDA REGIONAL
 TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,

                       Defendants.


                                             ORDER
        This cause comes before the undersigned on referral of the following matters filed by

 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se:

               Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limits for Both Sides’
                Upcoming Summary Judgment Briefs (Doc. 224, the Motion to Exceed Page
                Limits);

               Notice Supplementing Consultation Certification on the Motion to Exceed Page
                Limits (Doc. 225, the Supplement); and

               Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time for Federal Defendants to
                Respond to Amended Complaint (Doc. 226, the Motion to Extend Time).

        In the Motion to Exceed Page Limits, Plaintiff asserts that:

        Given the large number of counts presented in the Amended Complaint on two
        totally separate Executive Branch COVID-19 mandates and the Court’s previously
        expressed desire for briefing to be consolidated on both the Federal Transportation
        Mask Mandate and International Traveler Testing Requirement, it would be
        appropriate for the Court to grant extra pages for both sides’ briefs as follows: a
        maximum of 35 pages (10 extra) for each summary-judgment motion, 30 pages (10
        extra) for each opposition, and 10 pages (three extra) for each reply.
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 228 Filed 02/15/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 6614




 Doc. 224 at 2. In the Motion to Extend Time, Plaintiff seeks an extension of time for the Federal

 Defendants to respond to the Amended Complaint until “the Court’s resolution of both parties’

 forth-coming motions for summary judgment.” Doc. 226 at 5. Plaintiff gives no indication when

 he might file a motion for summary judgment, and no deadline has been set by the Court. Both of

 Plaintiff’s Motions are filed as unopposed.

        As to the Motion to Exceed Page Limits, the Court finds that it is due to be granted in part

 to the extent Plaintiff is requesting a ten-page extension for his summary judgment motion. But

 to the extent Plaintiff requests an extension of the page limitation for the Federal Defendants’

 response or Plaintiff’s reply, the Motion is denied. The Federal Defendants are fully capable of

 seeking an extension of the page limitation for their response—if they actually require one—and

 articulating the cause for such an extension. And without a response filed, Plaintiff cannot justify

 an extension of his page limitation to reply to that response.

        Similarly, Plaintiffs’ request to extend the time for the Federal Defendants to respond to

 the Amended Complaint is due to be denied. If the Federal Defendants desire an extension, and

 can justify an extension, they may seek that relief. But Plaintiff’s desire to move the case more

 quickly by foregoing the Federal Defendants’ obligation to respond to the Complaint is not good

 cause for such an extension. And though Plaintiff consistently blames the Court for what he

 perceives as the slow progress of this case, it is his steadfast refusal to comply with the rules of

 this Court, his insistence on clogging the docket with unnecessary filings, and his attempts to

 dictate the procedural rules of the courts of the United States that have needlessly multiplied these

 proceedings. See, e.g., Docs. 211 (January 18, 2022, Sanctions Order by district judge); 74 at 2

 (Wall v. CDC et al., No. 21-12179-D (11th Cir. June 30, 2021) (“In particular, we note that Wall’s

 refusal to refile his preliminary injunction motion in the district court in compliance with the




                                                 -2-
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 228 Filed 02/15/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 6615




 court’s local rules, as noted in the magistrate judge’s order, is an insufficient basis for us to exercise

 our appellate jurisdiction in this case.”)).

         Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

         1. The Motion to Exceed Page Limits (Doc. 224) is GRANTED in part to the extent that

             Plaintiff may file a single motion for summary judgment in this case of no more than

             35 pages and is DENIED without prejudice in all other respects; and

         2. The Motion to Extend Time (Doc. 226) is DENIED.

         ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 15, 2022.




 Copies furnished to:

 Counsel of Record
 Unrepresented Parties




                                                   -3-


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.390847.228.0.pdf

Size

153,331 bytes

SHA-256

c83785b5811dcb95d54ba62996a85a14c8c9f73ef5962b136543ff5bf25ea941

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.390847.228.0.pdf

Original

archive.org