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)

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-