Hubbard v. St. Louis Psychiatric Rehabilitation Center

Filing 66

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER:IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Stay Order, Motion for Sanctions, Motion for Discovery of Defendants Attorneys Postal Records and Motion for Judgment due to Sanctions 60 , construed as a motion for reconsiderat ion, is GRANTED in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file his response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss Doc. No. 55 no later than Monday, May 13, 2013. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in all other respects, Plaintiffs Motion is DENIED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 4/29/2013. (RAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

MYRON HUBBARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
ST. LOUIS PSYCHIATRIC
REHABILITATION CENTER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:11-CV-2082-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Order, Motion for Sanctions,
Motion for Discovery of Defendant’s Attorneys Postal Records and Motion for Judgment due to
Sanctions [ECF No. 60] which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration of its April 2,
2013 order dismissing this case. In his motion, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants failed to send
him a copy of their motion to dismiss filed on February 21, 2013. A review of the docket
indicates that Plaintiff notified the Court of a change of address on February 28, 2013 (Doc. No.
57), raising an issue as to whether Plaintiff received Defendants’ motion. In their response filed
April 25, 2013, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because they mailed
their motion and memoranda in support to the correct address. (Doc. No. 63) However,
Defendants state they are not opposed to the Court granting Plaintiff a reasonable period of time
to respond to their motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Order, Motion for
Sanctions, Motion for Discovery of Defendant’s Attorneys Postal Records and Motion for

Judgment due to Sanctions [60], construed as a motion for reconsideration, is GRANTED in
part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file his response to Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 55) no later than Monday, May 13, 2013.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in all other respects, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

Dated the 29th day of April, 2013.

_______________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2