Jones et al v. Hobbs et al

Filing 71

ORDER denying 64 Motion for Default Judgment; granting 69 Motion to Extend Time in which to file dispositive motions until November 7, 2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 9/22/11. (kpr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION TYRONE JONES, ADC #92503, and AHMEEN MUMIT, AD #95017 v. PLAINTIFFS 2:10-cv-00202-JMM-JTK RAY HOBBS, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Mumit’s Motion for Default Judgment, which this Court construes as a Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 64), and on Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to file a Dispositive Motion (Doc. No. 69). Defendants filed a Response to the Motion for Default (Doc. No. 70). In his Motion, Plaintiff Mumit asks for a default judgment against Defendant Ray Hobbs because Defendant failed to provide responses to his discovery requests by the deadline of August 22, 2011. In their Response, Defendants state their responses were mailed to the Plaintiff on August 24, 2011, but that they were unaware until September 20, 2011 that the responses were not delivered to Plaintiff because of a need for additional postage. Defendants state they have re-mailed their responses to Plaintiff at the Tucker Unit. Defendants also oppose Plaintiff’s Motion as improperly filed, since Plaintiff first is required to confer in good faith with Defendants concerning outstanding discovery requests. See FED.R.CIV.P. 37(a)(1). If, after conferring in good faith, Plaintiff is not satisfied with Defendants’ response, his next step is to file with the Court a motion to compel. Since Plaintiff failed to abide by these rules, Defendants state the Motion should be denied. The Court agrees that Plaintiff failed to comply with the federal rules by filing the present Motion prior to conferring with counsel. Both Plaintiffs are cautioned to carefully consult the Rules 1 prior to filing future motions. In addition, in light of the Defendants’ response, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied. The Court will grant Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time in which to file a Dispositive Motion. Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff Mumit’s Motion for Default, which this Court construes as a Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 64) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 69) is GRANTED. Dispositive motions shall be filed by November 7, 2011. IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of September, 2011. ______________________________________ JEROME T. KEARNEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

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?