United States v. Rainbow

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
                                   :              FILED
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              95 MAY  10 AM 8:53
     Plaintiff,

                  vs.                  CASE NO. 96-183-Civ-J-20

THE RAINBOW FAMILY, etc., et al.,
     Defendants.

ORDER

1. 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 (Doc. #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.

2. 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

1

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.

3. 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.

4. 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

2

for some period beyond the currently stated date." This request is DENIED,

ENTERED at Jacksonville, Florida. this 10 th day of May, 1996.

HOWARD T. SNYDER
United States Magistrae Judge
Counsel of Record

Copies to
Mr. Thomas
Mr. Barrie ("Wakeem")
Mr. Baxter
Mr. Williams

3

Case Contents | Rainbow Cases | Rainbow Regulation Page
Rainbow Home Page