Anzaldua v. Northeast Ambulance and Fire Protection District et al

Filing 55

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 54 MOTION to Lift Stay , Amend Case Management Order and Continue Trial Setting filed by Plaintiff Stevon Anzaldua. motion is DENIED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on February 19, 2014. (MCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

STEVON ANZALDUA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NORTHEAST AMBULANCE and
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:13CV01257 ERW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay of Discovery or
Clarify and Amend Case Management Order to Include Continuing Trial Date [ECF No. 54].
In his motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to extend the time permitted for amending the
pleadings, joining additional parties, disclosing experts, completing all discovery, and filing any
dispositive motions. Plaintiff additionally requests the trial of this case to be continued.
The Court notes that, rather than filing a timely response to Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, Plaintiff elected to file a motion asking
the Court to defer ruling on the defendants’ motion. Consequently, this Court has recently ruled
on a request by Plaintiff to, among other things, grant additional time for Plaintiff to conduct
discovery, lift a stay on discovery, and amend the Case Management Order to allow additional
time for Plaintiff to conduct discovery. In an Order dated February 5, 2014, the Court denied
Plaintiff’s motion, and instructed Plaintiff to file his Response to the summary judgment motion
within twenty-one (21) days of its ruling [ECF No. 50]. The Court has also recently issued an
Order granting Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint [ECF No. 49]. Plaintiff’s filing of
motions has already secured him additional time to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and the Case Management Order entered in this matter. Nevertheless, Plaintiff filed
the instant motion, revisiting issues previously discussed and determined by this Court. Plaintiff
is strongly warned such repetitive motions, particularly as Plaintiff has little reason to believe the
Court would be persuaded to change its rulings, are not warranted, and tend to serve little
purpose other than to increase the burden on the Court and opposing counsel. The Court will
deny Plaintiff’s motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay of Discovery or Clarify
and Amend Case Management Order to Include Continuing Trial Date [ECF No. 54] is
DENIED.
Dated this

19th

day of February, 2014.

E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2