Morgal v. Arpaio et al

Filing 170

ORDER that Plaintiff's 160 Request for more time to Respond is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, by way of clarification, that Plaintiff's 165 Response and the 166 , 167 , 168 , and 169 accompanying filings are deemed to have been filed timely; and defendant shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this order in which to file, if any, a reply. Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 8/2/2012.(LFIG)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 9 10 11 12 Allan K. Morgal, 13 Plaintiff, 14 15 vs. Maricopa County Board of, Supervisors, 16 Defendants. 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CIV-07-0670-PHX-RCB O R D E R 18 On July 3, 2012, plaintiff pro se Allan K. Morgal filed a 19 “Request for more time to Respond to Defendant[’]s Motion for 20 Summary Judgment[,]” which was docketed as a motion and the 21 court has deemed to be a motion. 22 defendant did not file a response to this motion. 23 thereafter, on July 9, 2012, plaintiff filed a “Request for 24 Discovery[.]” Mot. (Doc. 161). 25 motion, this court allowed defendants to file a response. 26 (Doc. 163) at 2:19-22. 27 August 28 court’s prior order, plaintiff has “seven (7) days after service 1, 2012 (Doc. Mot. (Doc. 160) at 1. The Shortly Construing that “Request” as a Ord. Defendants timely filed a response on 165). Thus, in accordance with this of [that] response, . . . , to file a reply if he so desires.” 1 Given what it perceived, in hindsight perhaps inaccurately, 2 the relationship between plaintiff’s motion for an extension of 3 time and his discovery motion, this court deliberately held the 4 former motion in abeyance, anticipating that it would resolve 5 both issues at once. 6 this court’s consideration in that there is time for plaintiff 7 to file a reply if he so chooses. 8 2, 2012, plaintiff filed his response to defendant’s motion for 9 summary judgment, included voluminous exhibits thereto. 10 Docs. 165-169. 11 The discovery motion is not yet ripe for In the meantime, on August See an extension of time. Those filings render moot plaintiff’s motion for 12 13 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 14 15 (1) Plaintiff’s “Request for more time to Respond to 16 Defendant[’]s Motion for Summary Judgment[]” is DENIED as moot; 17 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, by way of clarification, that: 19 20 (2) in the interest of justice, Plaintiff’s Response 21 to 22 accompanying filings (Docs. 166, 167, 168, and 169) are deemed 23 to have been timely filed; and defendant’s summary judgment motion (Doc. 165), and 24 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 26 27 (3) also in the interest of justice, defendant shall 28 have fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this order in -2- 1 which 2 defendant’s motion for summary judgment. to file, if any, a reply to plaintiff’s 3 DATED this 2nd day of August, 2012. 4 5 6 7 8 9 Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- response to

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?