Walker v. Ryan et al

Filing 150

ORDER granting 149 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff does not need to file his Response until further order setting said time for a response is entered by the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 9/6/12.(LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Sheldon Walker,

10
11

Plaintiff,
vs.

12
Charles L. Ryan,
13
Defendant.
14

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

No. CV-10-1408-PHX-JWS (LOA)
ORDER

15
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to
16
Respond to Defendant’s [Motion] for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 149)
17
Plaintiff filed a Section 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, alleging six counts of
18
constitutional violations, on July 7, 2010. (Doc. 1) Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis
19
status on September 15, 2010, and his complaint was dismissed in part and allowed to
20
proceed in part. Defendants Ryan and Dunn were ordered to be served and answer the
21
complaint, with respect to Count I for Defendant Ryan and Counts I, II and III with respect
22
to Defendant Dunn. (Id. at pgs. 4, 5-6)
23
Plaintiff was granted leave to amend his complaint, doc. 19, and the First Amended
24
Complaint was filed on December 30, 2010, doc. 20. The Court ordered Defendants Dunn
25
and Ryan to answer Counts I, II and III, Defendants Ramos and Ryan to answer Count IV,
26
Defendants Ryan, Ramos and Dunn to answer Count V, and Defendants Swaney, Caldwell,
27
Barrett, Watson and Smith-Whitson to answer Count VI. (Doc. 19) On April 20, 2011, the
28

1

Court allowed Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint to substitute Defendant Watson

2

with Defendant Kurtz. (Docs. 40, 41) The Court later granted Plaintiff’s Motion to

3

Substitute Defendant Swanson for Defendant Kurtz and to voluntarily dismiss the claims

4

against Defendant Kurtz. (Doc. 138) On March 1, 2012, the Court granted Defendants’

5

Motion to Dismiss Count VI and dismissed Defendants Caldwell, Swaney, Barrett, Smith-

6

Whitson, and Swanson. (Doc. 111)

7

On June 29, 2012, Defendants moved for an extension of time in which to file

8

dispositive motions. (Doc. 137) The Court granted Defendants’ motion, but also ordered

9

that no further extensions would be granted. (Doc. 138 at 2) Defendants filed their Motion

10

for Summary Judgment on August 13, 2012, doc. 146, and the Court ordered that Plaintiff

11

had until September 17, 2012 in which to file his Response. (Doc. 148) On August 27,

12

2012, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Extension of Time to File his Response to Defendants’

13

Motion. (Doc. 149) In his request, Plaintiff asks for an additional thirty (30) days in which

14

to file his response to Defendants’ Motion because the Court has not yet ruled on Plaintiff’s

15

Motion to Compel, doc. 134, which Plaintiff contends plays a role in his response to the

16

Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 149 at 1) Plaintiff further alleges that he has had a

17

difficult time scheduling legal research time in the prison resource center. (Id.)

18
19

The Court has taken Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel under advisement. Plaintiff will
not be ordered to file his response until further order from the Court.

20

Accordingly,

21

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to

22

Defendant’s [Motion] for Summary Judgment, doc. 149, is GRANTED. Plaintiff does not

23

need to file his Response until further order setting said time for a response is entered by the

24

Court.

25

Dated this 6th day of September.

26
27
28
-2-