Bradberry v. Schriro, et al

Filing 230

ORDER that the 228 Motion for Extension of Time is granted to the limited extent that Pla's supplemental response to the motion to dismiss is due by 07/15/09. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 06/30/09.(ESL, )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Patrick Neal Bradberry, Plaintiff, vs. Dora B. Schriro, et al., Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV 05-1336-PHX-JAT ORDER

On December 22, 2008, Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss. On that same day, Plaintiff was advised he was required to respond to this motion or face partial dismissal of the amended complaint. After extensions, Plaintiff responded on April 7, 2009. On June 3, 2009, this Court noted that although Plaintiff was advised by the Magistrate Judge that he had to respond to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff was not advised that he had the opportunity to develop the record. Accordingly, as required by the Court of Appeals, this Court gave Plaintiff this advice and granted him another extension of time to respond to the motion until July 3, 2009. Plaintiff now seeks another extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss, until August 3, 2009. Plaintiff has already had over six-months to respond to this motion. Further, despite any duty this Court has to advise Plaintiff under Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, n. 14 (9th Cir. 2003), nothing prevented Plaintiff from "developing the record" in his original response to the motion.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Court finds the amount of time given to Plaintiff to be more than adequate to respond to a motion to dismiss in a case that has been pending over four years. Additionally, as Plaintiff correctly recounts in his motion for extension of time, any additional filing is a "supplement." Thus, the Court will consider Plaintiff's April 7, 2009 response regardless of whether he files a supplement. As a result, Plaintiff need not repeat anything he stated in his 25-page April 7, 2009 response. Because Plaintiff may have assumed he would be given an extension, the Court will grant him a brief extension of time to file his supplemental response as permitted by the June 3, 2009 order; but the Court will not grant him another 30 days. Additionally, NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS of this deadline will be granted and if Plaintiff fails to respond by this deadline, his ability to file a supplemental response will be waived. Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for extension of time (Doc. #228) is granted to the limited extent that Plaintiff's supplemental response to the motion to dismiss is due by July 15, 2009. DATED this 30th day of June, 2009.

-2-