Le v. Arizona Department of Corrections et al

Filing 91

ORDER denying 90 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time. The Clerk of Court is directed to accept no further filings in this case except in connection with an appeal. Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 10/21/13.(TLJ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Hai Van Le,

10
11
12
13
14

No. CV 11-0744-PHX-RCB
Plaintiff,

vs.

ORDER

Arizona Department of Corrections, et
al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff Hai Van Le brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

17

against several employees of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC). (Doc. 8.)

18

On May 26, 2013, Defendants filed a second motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 72.)

19

Plaintiff filed his response before the Court issued a notice pursuant to Rand v. Rowland,

20

154 F.3d 952, 962 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). (Docs. 75, 78.) The Court permitted

21

Plaintiff an opportunity to file a supplemental response, which he did. (Docs. 78, 81.)

22

The Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on September 12, 2013,

23

and judgment was entered. (Docs. 88, 89.)

24

Plaintiff now moves for an extension of time to respond to the Rand notice. (Doc.

25

90.) Because Plaintiff had the opportunity to supplement his response to the Motion for

26

Summary Judgment, no response to the Rand notice is required, and judgment has been

27

entered and the case closed, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied.

28

1
2
3
4
5
6

IT IS ORDERED:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Court’s Rand

Notice (Doc. 90) is denied.
(2)

The Clerk of Court is directed to accept no further filings in this case except

in connection with an appeal.
DATED this 21st day of October, 2013.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-