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