Pruitt v. Ryan et al

Filing 144

ORDER granting 138 Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification. Defendant Anderson serve a copy of the Motion for Summary Judgment and Statement of Facts (Docs. 104 , 105 ) on Plaintiff by mailing a copy of the documents to him at his address of record. Defendant Anderson shall file a Notice of Service contemporaneously thereto. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of service to file a response. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 12/2/16.(DXD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Sherman Terrell Pruitt,

10

Plaintiff,

11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-13-02357-PHX-DJH (ESW)

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Clarification for Defendant

17

Orson Anderson MD’s Motion for Summary Judgement” (Doc. 138) and Defendant

18

Orson Anderson M.D.’s Response (Doc. 143). Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Anderson

19

did not file a motion for summary judgment and asks the Court if Plaintiff must respond

20

“although Defendant Orson Anderson has not filed a Motion for Summary Judgement.”

21

(Doc. 138 at 1).

22

Clarification because the Court’s order requiring the Plaintiff to file a response (Doc.

23

112) and the many extensions of time granted thereafter (Docs. 117, 119, 127, 134) need

24

no clarification.

Defendant Anderson urges the Court to deny the Motion for

25

The Court notes that Defendant Anderson filed a Certificate of Service indicating

26

that a Notice of Electronic Filing was sent to Plaintiff for Defendant’s Motion for

27

Summary Judgment (Docs. 57 & 104 at 13). Per General Order 14-17 (Doc. 9 at 2, ¶6),

28

“[o]pposing parties must serve filings on Eyman and Lewis prisoners by means other

1

than electronic filing as provided in Rule 5.5(h) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure and

2

Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Eyman and Lewis staff will not provide

3

to prisoners NEFs or the hyperlinked documents filed by opposing parties.” Plaintiff is

4

housed in Lewis. Defendant Anderson should have mailed a paper copy of his Motion

5

and Statement of Facts to Plaintiff to effectuate service. Though Plaintiff has been on

6

notice of his responsibility to respond to Defendant Anderson’s pending Motion for

7

Summary Judgment (Doc. 104) since July 19, 2016 (Doc. 112), he never received a copy

8

of it. Plaintiff requested multiple extensions of time to respond which were granted

9

(Docs. 117, 119, 127, 134). Though the Court has specifically referenced Defendant

10

Anderson’s Motion for Summary Judgment in many Orders, all of which Plaintiff has

11

received, a copy of the Motion was not served on Plaintiff.

12

For good cause shown,

13

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification (Doc. 138).

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Anderson serve a copy of the

15

Motion for Summary Judgment and Statement of Facts (Docs. 104, 105) on Plaintiff by

16

mailing a copy of the documents to him at his address of record. Defendant Anderson

17

shall file a Notice of Service contemporaneously thereto. Plaintiff shall have thirty (30)

18

days from the date of service to file a response. Defendant may reply in accordance with

19

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

20

Dated this 2nd day of December, 2016.

21
22
23

Honorable Eileen S. Willett
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28

-2-