You are on page 1of 4

BRETT KIMBERLIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND v.

GREENBELT DIVISION NATIONAL BLOGGERS CLUB, et al., Defendants Case No. 13-CV-03059-PWG

DEFENDANT HOGES EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

COMES NOW Defendant William Hoge and hereby moves that this Court reconsider and partially amend its Letter Order (dated December 30, 2013) solely to the extent that it grants Plaintiff additional time to file responses to defendants motions. In support of this motion, Mr. Hoge states: 1. Plaintiff filed his motion for extension of time to respond to defendants motions on 23 December, 2013. The certificate of service filed with the motion claimed that Plaintiff served his motion on Defendant Hoge by email on 23 December. Mr. Hoge has

not been served a copy of that motion by email 1 or any other means. He found the motion on PACER on 27 December, 2013. 2. Defendant Hoge filed an opposition to Plaintiffs motion and a motion to strike Plaintiffs motion on 30 December, 2013, the next business day the Court was open. 3. On information and belief, at least one other defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiffs and motion to strike Plaintiffs motion on 30 December, 2013. 4. Both oppositions and motions to strike were filed within the 14-day window allowed by L.R. 105.2(a). If these filings had been considered, the Court might not have issued the same order. Furthermore, Defendant is likely due more effective notice than one business day. As noted in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 68 (1932), In Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 389, the necessity of due notice and an opportunity of being heard is described as among the immutable principles of justice which inhere in the very idea of free government which no member of the Union may disregard. 5. While it was reasonable for the Court to consider Plaintiffs motion for more time before his first response was due, Plaintiff has misled the Court by filing a certificate of service claiming to have served a party who was not, in fact, served. The lack of service on Defendant Hoge has allowed Plaintiff to sneak past the deadline for replying to Mr. Hoges motion to dismiss. That deadline was more or less put in place by Plaintiffs choice of when to sue and when to serve the defendants. Given Plaintiffs similar failure to attend to Defendant Hoges email address has been included in his signature block on all filings in the instant lawsuit. It is also prominently displayed on his website www.wjjhoge.com and his blog www.hogewash.com.
1

deadlines in the parallel state lawsuit (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont.Co., Case No. 380996 V) 2 and his over three decades of experience as a pro se litigant 3, surely, it is not in the interest of justice to allow Plaintiff to prolong the instant lawsuit any longer than necessary.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Defendant Hoge moves that this Honorable Court reconsider and partially amend its Letter Order solely to the extent that it grants Plaintiff an extension of time and to strike Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time in Which to Respond Pending Motions by Defendants for being improperly filed and/or for defective service or, if not stricken, to deny said motion for lack of merit.

On 30 August, 2013, Plaintiff filed a parallel lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Montgomery County (Case No. 380996 V) against Defendants Aaron Walker, William Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar, and Kimberlin Unmasked. During a scheduling hearing on 26 November, 2013, Judge Rubin admonished Plaintiff for failing to respond to motions filed by the defendants and for failing to serve copies of his own filings on the defendants counsels. Plaintiff was given a drop dead date for all tardy responses and was warned that he would face consequences for any future failure to respond to defendants filings.
2

A partial list of Plaintiffs pro se federal litigation includes Kimberlin v. Department of Treasury, 774 F.2d 204 (7th Cir. 1985), Kimberlin v. Department of Justice, et al., 788 F.2d 434 (7th Cir. 1986), Kimberlin v. Brewer, 825 F.2d 1157 (7th Cir. 1987), Kimberlin v. Department of Justice, 921 F.Supp. 833 (D. DC 1996), Kimberlin v. Department of Justice, 129 F.3d 944 (D. DC 1998), Kimberlin v. Dewalt, 12 F.Supp. 487 (D. Md. 1998), and Kimberlin v. Department of Justice, 150 F.Supp.2d 36 (D. DC 2001).
3

You might also like