Jordan et al v. Fisher et al
ORDER finding as moot 32 Motion for Discovery; finding as moot 62 Motion to Extend Deadline; finding as moot 17 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer ; finding as moot 23 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; terminating 24 Motion to Dismiss Signed by District Judge Henry T. Wingate on 9/20/16 (TRS)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
RICHARD JORDAN and RICKY CHASE
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:15CV295-HTW-LRA
MARSHALL L. FISHER, Commissioner,
Mississippi Department of Corrections, in
his Official Capacity; EARNEST LEE,
Superintendent, Mississippi State
Penitentiary, in his Official Capacity;
THE MISSISSIPPI STATE
EXECUTIONER, in his Official Capacity;
and UNKNOWN EXECUTIONERS, in
their Official Capacities
THOMAS EDWIN LODEN, JR. and
ROGER ERIC THORSON
This matter came before the Court on a review of the docket. Several Motions filed
earlier in this case remain pending on the docket although the Court has disposed of them
or they have become moot. In order that the docket accurately reflect the status of this
case, the Court will formally dispose of these Motions, as follows:
Motion for Enlargement of Time within which to File Answer to Complaint for
Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief under the Federal Civil Rights
Enforcement Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983) [Doc #17] - This Motion, which was filed on
May 26, 2015, asked for an enlargement of time up to May 29, 2015, within which to file the
Answer. The Answer was actually filed on May 28, 2015. Although the Plaintiffs objected
to the substance of the Answer, they did not move to strike it as untimely. The Court finds
that this Motion is moot.
Motion for Additional Pages for Memoranda in Support of Motion for
Preliminary Injunction [Doc. #23] - By this Motion, the Plaintiffs sought leave to file a
Memorandum and a Rebuttal Memorandum that totaled sixty-five pages, with the
Defendants’ being granted a like number of pages for their Reply. This Motion was filed
on the same date as the Memorandum in Support, which was forty-two pages long. The
Defendants’ Reply Memorandum was only twenty-three pages long.
Rebuttal Memorandum, however, was also twenty-three pages, thus totaling the sixty-five
pages that their counsel had requested. The Defendants did not object to the length of the
Memoranda; therefore, this Motion is moot.
State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #24]. The Defendants’ Motion sought
dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, based on their argument that no live case
or controversy existed. It was denied by an oral ruling during a telephone conference on
August 25, 2015, and that denial was memorialized in an Order entered on the next day.
The Defendants specifically appealed the oral denial by their Notice of Appeal filed on the
same date as the telephone conference, and they appealed the written denial by an
Amended Notice of Appeal filed a few days later. Through a clerical oversight, the Motion
remains pending on the docket. To avoid any confusion that might be created by another
denial at this late date, the Court will terminate this Motion.
Motion for Leave to Take Jurisdictional Discovery [Doc. #32]. The Plaintiffs’
Motion sought discovery on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, in order to respond to
the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. It was denied by an oral ruling during an evidentiary
hearing on July 29, 2015. Additionally, in its Order of August 25, 2015, the Court made a
specific finding that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the case. For these reasons, this
Motion is moot.
Unopposed Motion to Extend Defendants’ Expert Designation, Discovery, and
Motions Deadline [Doc. #62]. This Motion sought an extension of the following deadlines:
Defendants’ designation of experts to March 15, 2016; Discovery to May 16, 2016; Motions,
including Daubert motions, to June 8, 2016. Counsel for the Defendants conferred with
counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Intervenors, and there was no opposition to this request.
Following the submission of the Motion, the Defendants filed their Designation of Experts
on February 16, 2016.
On April 21, 2016, the Court entered an Amended and
Supplemental Scheduling Order setting the discovery and motion deadlines beyond the
dates requested in the Motion. For these reasons, this Motion is moot.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:
The Motion for Enlargement of Time within which to File Answer to Complaint
for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief under the Federal Civil
Rights Enforcement Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983) [Doc #17] is hereby
FOUND AS MOOT.
The Motion for Additional Pages for Memoranda in Support of Motion for
Preliminary Injunction [Doc. #23] is hereby FOUND AS MOOT.
The State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #24] is hereby
The Motion for Leave to Take Jurisdictional Discovery [Doc. #32] is hereby
FOUND AS MOOT.
The Unopposed Motion to Extend Defendants’ Expert Designation,
Discovery, and Motions Deadline [Doc. #62] is hereby FOUND AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED this the 20th day of September, 2016.
s/ Henry T. Wingate
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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?