Maloney v. Ryan et al

Filing 19

ORDER: 1) the defendants to file and serve a response to plaintiff's renewed motion for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction (Doc. 16 ) by no later than Monday, July 22, 2013, at noon; (2) if plaintiff decides to file an d serve a reply, he shall do so by no later than Monday, July 29, 2013; and (3) plaintiff's motion shall be resolved on the written submissions before the court; no evidentiary hearing will be conducted. See Order for further details. Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 7/16/13. (SJF)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 9 10 11 12 Erik Scott Maloney, 13 Plaintiff, 14 15 vs. Charles L. Ryan, et al. 16 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 13-00314-PHX-RCB(BSB) O R D E R 17 18 Familiarity with the prior proceedings herein is 19 presumed. 20 order (Doc. 13), on July 9, 2013, executed waivers of service 21 as to the original complaint were filed on behalf of 22 defendants Ryan and Linderman (Docs. 14 and 15), Evidently 23 the only other remaining defendant, Wayne Mason, has yet to 24 be served. 25 plaintiff pro se Erik Scott Maloney filed a second amended 26 complaint (“SAC”) (Doc. 17). 27 SAC, all pertaining to Ramadan, which this year began on July 28 9th and will end on approximately August 7th, are virtually Since the issuance of this court’s June 28, 2013 In any event, the next day, on July 10, 2013, The first three counts in the 1 identical to the first three counts in his original 2 complaint. 3 this court’s screening order (Doc. 5), Lance Hemter and 4 Stephen Morris are no longer named as defendants. 5 the SAC omits all allegations pertaining to them. 6 The only differences are that in accordance with Likewise, Unlike the original complaint, however, the SAC includes 7 a fourth count, which was the sole basis for plaintiff’s 8 first amended complaint. 9 violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized 10 Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a), against 11 defendant Ryan. The plaintiff alleges that defendant Ryan 12 violated RLUIPA by rescinding an Arizona Department of 13 Corrections policy regarding inmates’ possession of religious 14 books, “substantially burdening” the “religious exercise of 15 Dawwah[,]” which is “require[d] [of] [M]uslim 16 practitioner[s][.]” SAC (Doc. 17) at 13 and 14. 17 That fourth count alleges a The SAC has yet to be served. Obviously, this fourth 18 count is separate and distinct from the three Ramadan counts, 19 which were the subject of this court’s prior screening order, 20 and of which defendants Ryan and Linderman are fully aware, 21 given that they have both been served with the original 22 complaint. 23 Simultaneously with the filing of the SAC, the plaintiff 24 filed a renewed “Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 25 and/or Preliminary Injunction[.]” Mot. (Doc. 16) at 1:12-13. 26 That motion pertains solely to the Ramadan counts (I-III). 27 Because currently Ramadan is ongoing, the court hereby 28 orders: -2- 1 (1) the defendants to file and serve a response to 2 plaintiff’s renewed motion (Doc. 16) by no later than Monday, 3 July 22, 2013, at noon; 4 5 (2) if plaintiff decides to file and serve a reply,1 he shall do so by no later than Monday, July 29, 2013; and 6 (3) plaintiff’s motion shall be resolved on the written 7 submissions before the court; no evidentiary hearing will be 8 conducted. 9 DATED this 16th day of July, 2013. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se 23 24 25 26 1 27 28 The plaintiff is advised that particularly in light of the “newly developed facts” as outlined in his renewed motion and the accompanying exhibits, at least insofar as the court is concerned, a reply is not essential. See Maloney Decl’n (Doc. 16) at 3, ¶ 2. -3-

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?