United States District Court
Middle District Of Florida
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
5 MAY 10 AM 8:53
CASE NO. 96-183-Civ-J-20
THE RAINBOW FAMILY, etc., et al.,
ENTERED at Jacksonville, Florida. this 10 the day of May, 1996.
- The Motion to Intervene as a Defendant (Doc. #55), filed
by William Thomas on March 20, 1996, is DENIED. Said motion is not
accompanied by "a brief or legal memorandum with citation of
authorities in support of the relief requested," a requirement of
Rule 3.01(a), Local Rules, United States District Court, Middle
District of Florida (hereinafter Local Rules). Even though the
Plaintiff does not oppose intervention by Mr. Thomas, see
Plaintiff's Response to William Thomas' Motion to Intervene as a
Defendant CDoc. #63), filed on March 29, 1996, the Movant has not
established he meets the requisites for intervention as of right
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 4 ( a ) . See Chiles v. Thornburgh , 865 F.2d
1197, 1213 (Ilth Cir. 1989). The Ex Parte Motion for Leave to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #57), filed by Mr. Thomas on March
20, 1996, is also DENIED.
- Defendant Steven Williams has filed a request for an
extension of time in which to respond to Plaintiff's complaint.
See Defendant Williams' Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. #61;
hereinafter Motion to Extend Time), filed on March 22, 1996. It is
noted, however, that the Court file presently contains what appears
to be an answer submitted by "Bullwinkle" also known as Steven
Williams. See untitled pleading (Doc. #45; hereinafter Answer),
filed on March 12, 1996. Because Defendant Williams has already
filed a pleading responsive to Plaintiff's, the Motion to Extend
Time (Doc. #61) is GRANTED to the extent he may amend his Answer
within ten (10) days from the entry of this Order. Any such
amendment should contain all of Mr. Williams' defenses and other
appropriate responses and should not refer back to his original
answer. See Local Rule 4.01.
- On April 5, 1996, Defendant "Wakeem" also known as
William L. Barrie filed an untitled pleading (Doc. #71; hereinafter
Motion for Extension) requesting "an additional 30 days in which to
answer the complaint" and indicated he was attempting to obtain an
attorney. The Court is not inclined to grant this request. This
Defendant was previously given an extension of time in which to
respond to Plaintiff's pleading, see Order (Doc. #44), entered on
March 11, 8996, and thirty days have passed since the Motion for
Extension was filed. Accordingly, the Motion for Extension is
DENIED. "Wakeem" shall answer or otherwise respond to the
complaint within ten (10) days from the entry of this Order.
- Also before the Court is an untitled pleading (Doc. #?6),
filed on April 29, 1996, by Glen Baxter of Burbank, California.
This missive states "[c]onsidering the size of the alleged 'Class'
and the desire of other individuals to enter into this action as
intervenors, it is requested that the response time be lengthened
for some period beyond the currently stated date." This request
Copies to: HOWARD T. SNYDER
Counsel of Record: United States Magistrae Judge
Mr. Barrie ("Wakeem")