Patterson v. Schriro, et al

Filing 142

ORDER denying 136 Motion to Continue or Reinstate Stay. The previously ordered time frame in which the parties have to file any dispositive motions is sua sponte extended. Such motions, by any party, shall be filed no later than March 13, 2012. Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 2/27/12.(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
13
14
15
16

Barry Northcross Patterson, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

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

17
18

On February 1, 2012, plaintiff pro se Barry Northcross

19

Patterson filed a “Motion to Continue or Reinstate [the]

20

Stay” (Doc. 136) granted by this court on December 29, 2011

21

(Doc. 133).

22

30, 2012.

23

2, 2012, order, this court found plaintiff’s motion for a

24

continuance to be moot.

25

court found that the issue of reinstatement was “still . . .

26

outstanding[.]” Id. at 3:3-4.

27
28

By its own terms, that stay expired on January
Ord. (Doc. 138) at 3:1-3.

Id.

Thus, in its February

At the same time though, the

As this court allowed, defendants timely filed their
response to plaintiff’s motion.

Defendants are seeking to

1

have this court “defer its ruling until . . . Patterson

2

supplements his Motion with additional information.”

3

Resp. (Doc. 141) at 1:17-18.

4

the inadequacy of the record in terms of being able to assess

5

“whether or not [a] stay . . . is still reasonably warranted

6

and, if it is, how long it should last.”

7

Defendants point out the uncertainty surrounding plaintiff’s

8

eating habits, and the purported increase in his mental

9

health score.

Defs.’

Defendants’ primary concern is

Id. at 2:17-18.

The latter “means that [plaintiff] may yet be

10

approved for a transfer to a medical facility[,]” but such a

11

transfer had “not occurred as of [the] writing[]” of

12

defendants’ response.

13

Id. at 2:9-11 (emphasis added).

LRCiv 7.2(d) allows a moving party seven “days after

14

service of the responsive memorandum to file a reply

15

memorandum if that party so desires.”

16

Computing that time in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 6 means

17

that plaintiff had until February 23, 2012 in which to file a

18

reply.

19

LRCiv 7.2(d).

Plaintiff did not do so, however.

Arguably of more import is that recently plaintiff has

20

been refusing delivery of legal mail, Defs.’ Resp., exh. A

21

thereto (Doc. 141-1), including a copy of this court’s

22

February 2, 2012 order.

23

other things, seriously calls into question whether plaintiff

24

intends to continue prosecuting this action.

25

declines to speculate as to plaintiff’s intent at this

26

juncture, however.

27
28

See Doc. 139.

Such refusal, among

The court

Instead, on the record as presently constituted, the
court finds that plaintiff has not established the need for
-2-

1

reinstatement of the previously ordered stay.

2

rather than deferring its ruling on that issue, as defendants

3

urge, this court hereby ORDERS that:

4
5
6

Consequently,

(1) Plaintiff’s “Motion to Continue or Reinstate Stay”
(Doc. 136) is DENIED in its entirety; and
(2) the previously ordered time frame in which the

7

parties have to file any dispositive motions is sua sponte

8

extended.

9

later than March 13, 2012.

Such motions, by any party, shall be filed no
Responses and replies, if any,

10

shall be filed in accordance with the applicable Federal

11

Rules of Civil Procedure as well as the Local Rules of Civil

12

Procedure for the District of Arizona.

13

DATED this 27th day of February, 2012.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se
-3-