Leventhal v. Tomford et al

Filing 72

ORDER denying 70 Motion for extension of time to file response; motion for permission to file early summary judgment motion.(Written Opinion) Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez on 10/3/2018. (LCC) cc: Howard E. Leventhal. Modified text on 10/3/2018 (MMP).

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Howard E. Leventhal., Case No. 0:18-cv-320-PAM-KMM Plaintiff, ORDER v. Travis Tomford et al.; Defendants. Howard E. Leventhal, # 46376-424, Federal Prison Camp, P.O. Box 1000, Duluth, MN 55814, pro se. Mr. Leventhal has filed a motion (ECF No. 70) requesting an extension until October 5th to respond to the government’s motion to reconsider this Court’s order granting Mr. Leventhal permission to file in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 58) This motion is denied because Mr. Leventhal already has until October 11th to respond to the government’s motion. The government’s motion was filed on September 20, 2018 (see ECF No. 58), and Mr. Leventhal was granted 21 days to respond. (See Order Granting Request for Permission to File a Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 50.) Therefore, Mr. Leventhal’s request is moot. Within the same motion, Mr. Leventhal requested permission to file an early summary judgment motion. The Court finds that summary judgment motions would be premature at this stage of the litigation and denies Mr. Leventhal’s request at this time. Because the Court denies this request, it also denies Mr. Leventhal’s request for a telephonic hearing on the matter. Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Mr. Leventhal’s Motion for Time to File Objections to Defendants’ Doc. 58, 59, & 60; to File Motion for Summary Judgment, and for Telephonic Hearing in this Matter (ECF No. 70) is DENIED. Date: October 3, 2018 s/ Katherine Menendez Katherine Menendez United States Magistrate Judge

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?