Almy v. Davis et al

Filing 61

ORDER Granting 59 Motion for order to permit reply to defendants opposition. Granting 60 Motion to Extend Time to Respond to 27 Partial MOTION to Dismiss. Responses due by 1/31/2013. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 11/28/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
11
KEVIN ALMY,
12
Plaintiff,
13
vs.
14
D. DAVIS, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
/

2:12-cv-00129-JCM-VCF
ORDER

17

Presently before the court is plaintiff, appearing pro se, Kevin Almy’s motion for order to permit

18

reply to defendants’ opposition (doc. # 59) and plaintiff’s motion to extend time to respond (doc. # 60).

19

Defendants have not responded.

20

I.

Motion for order to permit reply to defendants’ opposition (doc. # 59)

21

First, plaintiff requests an opportunity to file a reply to defendant’s opposition to plaintiff’s

22

motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. # 59). The motion for preliminary injunction was filed

23

September 19, 2012. (Doc. # 21). Defendants responded on October 3, 2012. (Doc. # 23). Replies were

24

due by October 13, 2012. Provided plaintiff’s current incarceration, the court permitted an additional

25

month for plaintiff to file a reply. The court issued its order denying the preliminary injunction on

26

November 14, 2012. (Doc. # 51).

1

On November 21, 2012, plaintiff filed his reply. (Doc. # 57). Reply briefs are optional and not

2

mandatory, but if one is to be filed, it must be filed by the deadlines set forth. However, in good faith,

3

the court has reviewed plaintiff’s untimely reply.1

4

After having reviewed the reply and considered the contents therein, the court’s order denying

5

the preliminary injunction (doc. # 51) stands.

6

II.

Motion to extend time to respond (doc. # 60)

7

Second, plaintiff requests an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’ partial motion

8

to dismiss (doc. # 27). Defendant represents that he has not been served a copy of the motion. Although

9

the court has already sua sponte granted a one-month extension of time for defendant to respond, the

10

court finds that additional time is warranted.

11

III.

Conclusion

12

Accordingly,

13

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion for

14

order to permit reply to defendants’ opposition (doc. # 59) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.2

15
16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to extend time to respond (doc. # 60) be,
and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants serve another copy of the partial motion to dismiss

18

(doc. # 27) on plaintiff on or before December 3, 2012. To comply, defendants need only mail the

19

motion to plaintiff by this date.

20

...

21

...

22

...

23
1

24
25
26

Plaintiff represents that he did not receive defendants’ opposition until November 7, 2012. (Doc. # 57, 2:4-7). The
court is aware of the sluggish pace at which correspondence is received and sent through the prison mail system. And the
court has afforded a generous amount of time to accommodate these circumstances (as demonstrated by this court sua sponte
providing plaintiff with an additional month to respond to defendant’s partial motion to dismiss).
2
The reply was filed as doc. # 57. The court has considered the reply and finds that its current order on the
preliminary injunction (doc. # 51) stands.

2

1
2
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have up to, and including, January 31, 2013, to
file an opposition.3 The opposition will be considered filed on the date of mailing.
Dated November 28, 2012.

4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3

The court bases this deadline upon prior history in this case.

3