Camick v. Dorneker et al

Filing 29

ORDER granting in part Plaintiff's 26 Motion for Extension of Time to File his Reply re 19 MOTION to Stay Case. Reply deadline extended to 9/7/2018 for the motion to stay only. The clerk's office shall take the appropriate steps to serve defendant John Ehr and Board of Commissioners of Chase County Kansas with the summons and Amended Complaint. SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer on 8/16/18. (adc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

LESLIE LYLE CAMICK,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD DORNEKER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 18-1065-EFM-GEB

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (ECF
No. 26). As set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in part, to the extent
Plaintiff seeks additional time to file his Reply memorandum in support of his Motion to
Stay (ECF No. 19).
Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time seeks an extension of time “to file his
reply brief” which he asserts is due on August 17, 2018 (ECF No. 26 at 1-2). Although
there are currently multiple motions pending before both the undersigned Magistrate
Judge1 and before the District Judge2 assigned to this matter, Plaintiff’s instant motion
does not specifically identify any pending motion, leaving the Court to guess at which
1

In addition to the instant motion, also pending before U.S. Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer
is Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Case (ECF No. 19); filed July 2, 2018.
2
Pending before U.S. District Judge Eric F. Melgren are the following motions: Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss [Plaintiff’s initial Complaint] for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 11, filed
June 7, 2018); Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (ECF
No. 15, filed June 18, 2018); Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint]
for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 23, filed Aug. 3, 2018); and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
Portions of Defendants’ Response Memorandum (ECF No. 27, filed Aug. 14, 2018).

briefing deadline Plaintiff wishes to extend. According to the Court’s Electronic Filing
System, Plaintiff’s Reply brief in support of his Motion to Stay this case (ECF No. 19) is
the only brief due on August 17, so the Court assumes it is this schedule Plaintiff wishes
to extend.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 26) also includes a request for
the Court to extend his deadline to serve two defendants with the Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 18), filed on July 2, 2018: 1) the Board of Commissioners of Chase County
Kansas, and 2) John Ehr. Because Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, he provided
defendants’ addresses to the clerk’s office, who then undertook service of Plaintiff’s
initial Complaint on his behalf under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).
Plaintiff now admits he improperly sought service on defendant Ehr at his place of
business, rather than his residence. Additionally, upon filing his Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 18), Plaintiff failed to provide an address for the newly-named defendant
Board.
Defendant Ehr joined in the other defendants’ dispositive motions, and although
improper service is addressed in that motion, it specifies that, because “no valid claim is
stated against any defendant in Camick’s First Amended Complaint, dismissal may be
had on that basis without addressing the propriety of service.” (ECF No. 24 at 28.) The
court finds, then, that Ehr would not be prejudiced by proper service. Furthermore,
Plaintiff’s deadline for service on the Board has not yet expired under Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(m), and under § 1915(d), the court must serve all process on his behalf. For these

reasons, Plaintiff’s request to serve these two defendants with the Amended Complaint is
granted, and the clerk of the court is directed to attempt service on both.
To the extent Plaintiff wishes to extend time to respond to any other motion
pending before the court, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. If Plaintiff wishes to extend
briefing deadlines on any other motion, he must file a request which specifically identifies
the motion to which his extension relates.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time
(ECF No. 26) is GRANTED in part as set forth above. The clerk’s office shall take the
appropriate steps to serve defendants John Ehr and Board with the summons and
Amended Complaint as provided under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s deadline to file his Reply brief in
support of his Motion to Stay (ECF No. 19) is extended for an additional 21 days, to
September 7, 2018. No further extensions to the briefing deadlines for the Motion to
Stay will be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 16th day of August, 2018.

s/ Gwynne E. Birzer
GWYNNE E. BIRZER
United States Magistrate Judge