Bertanelli v. Ryan et al

Filing 92

ORDER denying Plaintiff's "Emergency Objection to Magistrate Denial of Plaintiff's Second Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending Petition for Certiorari Review and Motion for Order Not to Respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss" (Docs. 79 , 84 ). Denying Plaintiff's Motions to Stay (Docs. 86 , 87 ). Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 9/6/12.(DMT)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Jonathan C. Bertanelli,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
___________________________ )

CV 11-1340-PHX-PGR (BSB)
ORDER

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s “Emergency Objection to Magistrate Denial of

15
Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending Petition for Certiorari Review and
16
17
18
19
20
21

Motion for Order Not to Respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. 79; see Doc. 84);
“Motion for Stay Not to Respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pending Court’s Ruling
on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint” (Doc. 86); and “Third Motion for Stay of the
District Court’s Proceedings on Plaintiff’s Original Complaint Pending Plaintiff’s Petition
for Certiorari Review” (Doc. 87). These motions will be denied.

22

On September 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging civil rights violations under

23

42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) On March 12, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc.

24

32.) On April 13, 2012, Magistrate Judge Anderson ordered Plaintiff to respond the motion

25

to dismiss no later than May 7, 2012. (Doc. 42.) This deadline was subsequently extended

26

to June 16, then to July 9, and finally to August 15, at which point Plaintiff was informed that

27

no further extension would be granted. (Doc. 81.)

1

On June 25, 2012, Magistrate Judge Anderson denied as moot Plaintiff’s “Motion in

2

Opposition to the Court’s Anticipated Pre-Screening Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s Policy

3

Claim” and found no basis for staying this action while Plaintiff petitions the United States

4

Supreme Court for review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals order denying his

5

interlocutory appeal. (Doc. 72.) Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of that order. (Docs. 79, 84.)

6

Because he has not shown that Magistrate Judge Anderson’s decision is clearly erroneous

7

or contrary to law, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), Plaintiff’s motions are denied.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiff has again moved to stay the proceedings. (Doc. 86, 87.) These motions are
also denied. As noted, Plaintiff has been granted several extensions of the deadline for
responding to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff again fails support his requests for
further delay.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s “Emergency Objection to Magistrate Denial
of Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending Petition for Certiorari Review

15
and Motion for Order Not to Respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss” (Docs. 79, 84).
16
17
18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motions to Stay (Docs. 86, 87).
DATED this 6th day of September, 2012.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-2-