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)
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?