Ortega v. Arizona Department of Corrections et al

Filing 161

ORDER AND OPINION, Plaintiff's Motions at 140 and 145 are denied. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 1/2/14.(REW)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 10 11 ERNIE PETE ORTEGA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 UNKNOWN VICKLUND, 15 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:11-cv-00890 JWS ORDER AND OPINION [Re: Motions at Docket 140, 145] 16 17 At docket 140, Plaintiff Ortega filed a “Notice to the Court.” In that notice, Ortega 18 requests a 30-day extension of time for submitting trial exhibits and an extension of the 19 trial date. At docket 145, Ortega filed a motion again requesting an extension of time 20 for submitting trial exhibits. At docket 150, Defendant Vicklund filed a response in 21 opposition to both docket 140 and docket 145. Plaintiff Ortega filed a reply at docket 22 159. 23 Plaintiff Ortega requests that he be granted additional time in which to file trial 24 exhibits and an extension of the trial date because the Arizona Department of 25 Corrections (“ADC”) lost his property when they transferred him to a different unit in 26 2012. He alleges that the lost property includes thirty-six books he needs to prepare for 27 trial. He does not provide details regarding these lost books. He argues that an 28 internal ADC appeal is still pending related to reimbursement and that he needs -1- 1 additional time to prepare exhibits. Defendant Vicklund argues that all grievances 2 regarding the loss of property has been resolved and that there was no evidence that 3 the lost property consisted of the specific books Ortega needs for exhibit preparation, 4 that the defendant had anything to do with the loss of property, or that the officers 5 involved were attempting to hinder Ortega’s lawsuit. 6 The court agrees with the reasoning set forth in Defendant Vicklund’s response. 7 Rule 106 of the Federal Rules of Evidence is not applicable here, and Plaintiff Ortega 8 has not submitted sufficient reason to allow an extension of time to submit exhibits or to 9 move the trial date. Based on the record before the court, Ortega’s grievances with 10 ADC related to the loss of property have been resolved. Ortega was allowed to submit 11 receipts in order to obtain reimbursement for any lost property and no officer 12 misconduct was found.1 There is nothing to show that the lost property included the 13 specific books that Ortega seeks to use at trial, and Ortega has not sufficiently 14 explained why such books are necessary for trial or why he cannot replace the books 15 while pursuing reimbursement. This case has been pending since May of 2011 and 16 any additional delay is unwarranted given the need for resolution. 17 Plaintiff’s motions at docket 140 and 145 are therefore DENIED. 18 19 DATED this 2nd day of January 2014. 20 21 /s/ 22 JOHN W. SEDWICK 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 1 Doc. 159 at pp. 19, 23. -2-

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?