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)

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-