Patterson v. Schriro, et al

Filing 138

ORDER re 136 MOTION to continue or reinstate Stay : The expiration on January 30, 2012, by its own terms, of this court's 30 day stay renders moot plaintiff's motion to the extent he is seeking a continuance of such stay. There is s till the outstanding issue, however, of whether the court should, as plaintiff seeks, reinstate that stay. In any event, because the original 30 day stay has been lifted, to that extent plaintiff's pending motion seeks to reinstate that stay, such motion is properly before this court. Before ruling on that motion, however, the court will await defendants' response, if any. In the interim, any dispositive motions which the parties desire to file shall be filed no later than thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this order. Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 2/2/12. (DMT)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9
10
11
12

Barry Northcross Patterson,

13

Plaintiff,

14

vs.

15

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

16

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 05-1159-PHX-RCB
O R D E R

17
18

On December 29, 2011, this court granted inmate plaintiff pro

19

se Barry Northcross Patterson, a stay of this litigation, “but

20

only, . . . , for 30 days from the date of entry of th[at]

21

order[.]”

22

bases for granting that limited stay.

23

scant record before it,” it appeared to the court that there was a

24

“possibility that plaintiff’s physical and mental state may be

25

compromised[]” due to his “self-imposed hunger strike[.]” Id. at

26

2:25-27.

27

defendants, Broderick and Mason, did not oppose a 30 day stay.

28

id. at 1:23-26 (citation omitted).

Ord. (Doc. 133) at 3:2-3, ¶ (1).

The court had two

First, “even based upon the

Second, primarily for that reason, the remaining
See

Thus, counting in accordance

1

with Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), that stay was effective until January 30,

2

2012.1

3

Additionally, this court granted plaintiff “the right to file

4

a motion, prior to the expiration of the initial 30-day stay, for

5

an additional stay not to exceed 30 days upon a showing that his

6

physical and emotional condition has not improved sufficiently for

7

him to participate meaningfully in these proceedings.”

8

8, ¶ (2) (emphasis added).

9

that court order.

Id. at 3:4-

Plaintiff did not strictly comply with

Rather, on January 12, 2012, he filed an “Update

10

& Response” (“the Update”) to that order.

11

134) at 1.

12

that Update plaintiff specifically “state[s][,]” among other

13

things, “that he feels capable & willing to try to maintain his

14

court obligations[.]”

15

consulting with the “prison facility for an update as to

16

Patterson’s emotional and physical status[,]” defendants requested

17

that the court “lift the stay” and “set a new dispositive motion

18

deadline of no sooner than 30 days after it enters its Order to

19

that effect[.]” Defs’. Reply (Doc. 135) at 2:12-13.

20

See Pl.’s Resp. (Doc.

Contradicting his initial professed need for a stay, in

Pl.’s Resp. (Doc. 134) at 3.

After

Just as the court was preparing to file its order addressing

21

plaintiff’s “Update” and defendants’ reply thereto, on February 2,

22

2012, plaintiff’s “Motion to Continue or Reinstate Stay” was

23

entered in the court’s docket.

See Pl’s Mot. (Doc. 136) at 1.

24
25
26
27
28

1

“[E]xclud[ing] the day of the event that triggers the period[,]” i.e.,
December 29, 2011, and “count[ing] every day, including intermediate Saturdays,
Sundays, and legal holidays[,]” means that that 30 day stay ended January 28, 2011.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(A)& (B). However, because the last day of the period was a
Saturday, “the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not
a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(C). Here, that means
that the last such day was Monday, January 30, 2012.

-2-

1

The expiration on January 30, 2012, by its own terms, of this

2

court’s 30 day stay renders moot plaintiff’s motion to the extent

3

he is seeking a continuance of such stay.

4

outstanding issue, however, of whether the court should, as

5

plaintiff seeks, reinstate that stay.

6

to why he believes a further stay is necessary.

7

fairly be read, however, as requesting a stay because of his self-

8

imposed 20 day “sever[e] reduc[tion] [in] caloric intake.”

9

There is still the

Plaintiff is not explicit as
His motion can

Id.

In any event, because the original 30 day stay has been

10

lifted, to that extent plaintiff’s pending motion seeks to

11

reinstate that stay, such motion is properly before this court.

12

Before ruling on that motion, however, the court will await

13

defendants’ response, if any.

14

motions which the parties desire to file shall be filed no later

15

than thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this order.

16

Responses and replies, if any, shall be filed in accordance with

17

the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as the

18

Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the District of Arizona.

19

In the interim, any dispositive

DATED this 2nd day of February, 2012.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se

27
28
-3-