Deetz #140453 v. Arizona Department of Corrections et al
ORDER denying 33 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 1/14/15.(LSP)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Garrett J. Deetz,
No. CV-13-00489-PHX-DJH (ESW)
Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.,
The Plaintiff is an inmate at the Arizona Department of Corrections, Special
Management Unit I (SMU I) in Florence, Arizona. He filed a Complaint (Doc. 1)
pursuant to 42 USC § 1983. By order of the Court (Doc. 23) filed September 30, 2014,
the Defendants Vukcevic and Valenzuela were determined to be required to Answer
Counts 1 and 2 of the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 25) filed April 14, 2014. All other
defendants were dismissed without prejudice.
Injunction (Doc. 19) was denied. Plaintiff was ordered to complete and return a service
packet to the Clerk of Court within 21 days. Plaintiff was ordered to obtain a waiver or
complete service of the Summons and First Amended Complaint on Defendants within
120 days of the filing of the Complaint or within 60 days of the filing of the Order,
whichever was later, or the First Amended Complaint would be dismissed as to those
defendants who were not timely served (Doc. 23 at page 15).
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Therefore, Plaintiff had until November 29, 2014 to serve Defendants Vukcevic
and Valenzuela or obtain a waiver of service. A review of the Docket reflects that
service packets were forwarded to the U.S. Marshal on November 14, 2014. Defendant
Vukcevic by and through his counsel executed a Waiver of Service (Doc. 30) on
December 17, 2014.
On December 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extention [sic] of Time (Doc
33). Plaintiff references an Order of the Court dated October 31, 2014, which does not
appear on the Docket. Plaintiff believes the Order set forth time limits by which Plaintiff
must “re-submit his preliminary injunction and/or 2nd Amendment.” Plaintiff requests an
extension of time of 60 days to “re-submit his motions.” The Order (Doc. 23) of
September 30, 2014 does not set forth time limits by which Plaintiff must re-submit a
The Court denied Plaintiff’s Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 23) without prejudice.
Therefore, Plaintiff is not precluded from re-asserting a request for injunctive relief.
Plaintiff has already filed one Amended Complaint. Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2),
Fed. R. Civ. P, a party may thereafter amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s
written consent or leave of the Court. Therefore, Plaintiff must file a Motion to Amend
should he wish to file a Second Amended Complaint without consent of all parties. No
Scheduling Order has issued at this time because no Defendants have answered.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file a motion to amend or
subsequent request for injunctive relief is not necessary.
The Motion for Extention [sic] of Time (Doc 33) is denied.
Dated this 14th day of January, 2015.
Honorable Eileen S. Willett
United States Magistrate Judge
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?