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-
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?