Schmid v. Cornell Corrections of America et al
Filing
94
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 92 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff shall file a Certificate of Review on or before 7/30/12. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 6/26/12.(cmacd )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02003-CMA-MEH
TONY SCHMID,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORNELL CORRECTIONS OF AMERICA,
VEACH, Warden,
DR. SHIVALINI M. SANTHANBAR,
TIMOTHY F. LYDEN,
STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
COMMISSIONER JOE SCHMIDT, and
JOHN/JANE DOE,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on June 26, 2012.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Extension of
Time to File Certificate of Review [filed June 22, 2012; docket #92]. Plaintiff’s Motion is granted
in part and denied in part as set forth below.
Plaintiff’s Motion asks the Court to reconsider its June 5, 2012 Minute Order granting
Plaintiff a 30-day extension of time within which to file a Certificate of Review in support of his
negligence claims. In its June 5, 2012 Minute Order, the Court found good cause for a 30-day
extension of time, but explained that a 60-day extension of time was not warranted because it was
unclear how or when the circumstances inhibiting Plaintiff from obtaining a Certificate of Review
were likely to change in the additional time requested. (Docket #90 at 2.)
In the present motion, Plaintiff contends that his circumstances are about to change
“radically” upon his upcoming transfer to a half-way house in Fairbanks, Alaska. By Plaintiff’s
estimate, he should be able to make an appointment with a physician in late July 2012. In light of
Plaintiff’s anticipated ability to obtain a Certificate of Review following his upcoming transfer,
Plaintiff requests an extension through and including August 10, 2012, within which to file said
Certificate in this case.
In determining whether Plaintiff has shown good cause for the requested extension, the Court
notes that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss has been pending in this case since April 16, 2012. (See
docket #77.) Because Defendants’ Motion relies, in part, on Plaintiff’s failure to file a Certificate
of Review, the Court cannot throughly adjudicate Defendants’ Motion until the issue is resolved.
The Court is mindful that any further dely may affect Defendants’ ability to receive a full and
prompt resolution of the claims asserted against them in this lawsuit.
At the same time, the Court also recognizes Plaintiff’s interest in protecting his claims from
dismissal by filing a Certificate of Review. The Court is persuaded that Plaintiff’s circumstances
have changed significantly, and that Plaintiff’s ability to obtain a Certificate of Review will improve
by the end of July. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause reconsider its June 5, 2012 Minute
Order and to grant Plaintiff the 60-day extension he originally requested. (See dockets ##87, 90.)
In light of this extension, Plaintiff shall file a Certificate of Review on or before July 30, 2012.
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?