Anthony v. City and County of Denver

Filing 260

ORDER. The Court ORDERS as follows: Plaintiff's "Request for Ruling on Motion to File RSASC" (ECF No. 234 ) is DENIED; and Plaintiff's "Motion for Extension to File Cross-Motions for Partial Summary Judgment, and Request to Upload Exhibits" (ECF No. 235 ) is GRANTED IN PART in that the documents have been made available electronically and the deadline for Plaintiff to file his motion for summary judgment is extended to March 19, 2021. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on March 5, 2021. (rvill, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 16-cv-01223-RM-NYW
THOMAS R. ANTHONY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER; and
ANTHONY SANDOVAL,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the following matters: (1) Plaintiff’s “Request for
Ruling on Motion to File RSASC” (the “Motion for Order”) (ECF No. 234); and (2) Plaintiff’s
“Motion for Extension to File Cross-Motions for Partial Summary Judgment, and Request to
Upload Exhibits” (the “Motion for Extension”) (ECF No. 235). Defendants filed responses but
Plaintiff filed no replies. Upon consideration of the motions, and being otherwise fully advised,
the Court finds and orders as follows:
The Motion for Order. In this motion, Plaintiff contends that the Court’s Order vacating
the final judgment in this case somehow vacated the Court’s prior order adopting the
recommendation denying Plaintiff leave to amend/supplement his complaint, The Court’s Order
did not. (See ECF No. 173.) Moreover, the Court will not revisit the issue again, as it has already
done so and found Plaintiff may not amend/supplement. (See ECF No. 173, p. 4-5.) Accordingly,
this motion is denied.

The Motion for Extension. Here, Plaintiff requests a 30-day extension of time to file any
cross-motion for summary judgment – calculated from the date in which his exhibits previously
submitted conventionally to the court are uploaded into PACER for public access. In order to be
granted an extension of time, Plaintiff must show “good cause.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b).
To start, it is unclear to the Court why Plaintiff would require the court’s copy of exhibits
he submitted. In other words, why he does not have a copy of his own exhibits.
Next, the fact that Plaintiff’s materials submitted to the court were not uploaded in the
court’s electronic case filing (“ECF”) system does not render those materials inaccessible to the
public. The public was able to review those documents at the Clerk’s office. The Court
recognizes, however, that, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there are currently certain limitations
on the public’s access to the Clerk’s office. Regardless, those materials have now been uploaded
into the ECF system and available electronically. (See ECF No. 67.)
Third, Plaintiff fails identify what he needs from those materials or how they support any
anticipated motion for summary judgment. Nor does Plaintiff contend that the only place in
which such materials may be found is at the court.
Finally, what remains of Plaintiff’s case is limited and Plaintiff has already responded to
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Thus, on this record, the Court finds insufficient
cause for a 30-day extension. Nonetheless, because of the limitations on in-person access to the
documents, the Court will grant Plaintiff a two-week extension from today in which to file his
motion for summary judgment.
Conclusion. Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1) That Plaintiff’s “Request for Ruling on Motion to File RSASC” (ECF No. 234) is
DENIED; and

2

(2) That Plaintiff’s “Motion for Extension to File Cross-Motions for Partial Summary
Judgment, and Request to Upload Exhibits” (ECF No. 235) is GRANTED IN PART
in that the documents have been made available electronically and the deadline for
Plaintiff to file his motion for summary judgment is extended to March 19, 2021.
DATED this 5th day of March, 2021.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

3