Ross v. Houston

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Respondent's Motion to Extend (filing no. 14 ) is granted in accordance with this Memorandum and Order and is otherwise denied. Respondent is directed to file a reply by October 23, 2013. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MICHAEL L. ROSS,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT HOUSTON, Director Of
Department of Correction For the
State of Nebraska,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:13CV3043

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On June 27, 2013,
Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Filing No. 11.) According to the
court’s May 14, 2013, Memorandum and Order, Petitioner had 30 days after June 27,
2013, to file a brief in opposition to Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
(Filing No. 8 at CM/ECF p. 4.) Rather than file a brief in opposition, Petitioner filed
a Motion for Stay and Abeyance. (Filing No. 13.) Respondent chose not to respond
to the Motion for Stay and Abeyance, and instead, moved to extend the “time to file
any reply brief necessary until after” the court rules on Petitioner’s Motion. (Filing
No. 14.) Liberally construed, Petitioner may have intended the Motion for Stay and
Abeyance to be a response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
Accordingly, Respondent is directed to treat the Motion for Stay and Abeyance as
Petitioner’s response to his Motion for Summary Judgment.
In light of this, the court will grant Respondent’s Motion to Extend, and extend
the time to file a reply to October 23, 2013. In any reply, Respondent should be
mindful to explain his position on whether this matter should be stayed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Respondent’s Motion to Extend (filing no. 14) is granted in accordance
with this Memorandum and Order and is otherwise denied.
2.

Respondent is directed to file a reply by October 23, 2013.

DATED this 26th day of September, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
2