Valu, 218 F.3d 869, 870 (8th Cir.2000). Solimán argues the district court should have granted his March 29 motion for an extension, because he suffered from extreme family hardship due to the unexpected death of his father. While we sympathize with Soliman’s situation and may have taken different action than did the district court, we cannot say the district court abused its considerable discretion in denying Soliman’s March 29 motion for an extension. The district court did not preclude Solimán from filing a response to the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment. Rather, it merely enforced a deadline governing the timing of submissions and denied any enlargement beyond the extension of time already granted. See Biby v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., 629 F.2d 1289,1293 (8th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). Even pro se litigants must comply with court
recognizing broad district court discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its docket recognizing that court has inherent power to control the judicial business before it holding a defendant is liable as a control person if the defendant had the power to control the general affairs of the entity primarily liable at the time the entity violated the securities laws but declining to decide whether power to control means simply abstract power to control or actual exercise of the power to control internal quotations omitted recognizing that knowledge and dominion and control are separate elements and stating that it is conceivable that an accused might be well aware of the presence of the substance but have no ability to maintain control over it holding it is critical to the trial courts power of control over its own docket and its ability to serve effectively all litigants that it maintain control over progress of cases before it including requests for extensions of time