STEELE v. CHICCHI et al
Filing
148
OPINION. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 12/28/2012. (gxh)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
YUSEF STEELE,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-3551 (MLC)
O P I N I O N
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN CICCHI, et al.,
Defendants.
THE COURT earlier recited the procedural history of the action
in detail insofar as it relates to the motions for summary judgment
filed by the defendants on June 8, 2012 and September 7, 2012
(“Motions”), and the plaintiff’s request that a subpoena duces
tecum be served on the CEO of Speedy Bail Bonds (“Subpoena”).
(See
generally dkt. entry no. 124, 7-9-12 Order; dkt. entry no. 136,
9-13-12 Op.).
We now recite only those facts deemed germane to the
instant dispute.
THE PLAINTIFF earlier asserted that he could not meaningfully
file opposition to the Motions because he had not received
documents in response to the Subpoena.
(See generally 7-9-12 Order
(interpreting the plaintiff’s filings).)
The Court thus denied the
Motions without prejudice, pending service of the Subpoena.
id. at 5; dkt. entry no. 137, 9-13-12 Order.)
(See
The Court ordered
the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) to serve the Subpoena.
(See 7-9-12 Order at 6.)
The Court also ordered the defendants to
refrain from filing the Motions anew until (1) the USMS served the
Subpoena, or (2) they otherwise were granted leave by the
Magistrate Judge.
(See 9-13-12 Order at 1-2.)
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE, after learning that the USMS served the
Subpoena, granted the defendants leave to move anew for relief on
or before November 9, 2012.
Order.)
(See dkt. entry no. 138, 10-15-12
The defendants complied, each timely filing a motion for
summary judgment in his favor and against the plaintiff.
(See dkt.
entry no. 139, New Cicchi Mot.; dkt. entry no. 140, New Masone
Mot.; dkt. entry no. 141, New DeAmicis Mot.; dkt. entry no. 142,
New Barth Mot. (collectively, “Defendants’ Newly-Filed Motions”).)
But the plaintiff thereafter notified the Magistrate Judge’s
chambers that he was unable to meaningfully oppose the Defendants’
Newly-Filed Motions because he still had not received documents in
response to the Subpoena.
(See generally dkt. entry no. 143, 11-
15-12 Order.)
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE ordered the plaintiff to file a motion to
compel production or a written request for additional time to
oppose the Defendants’ Newly-Filed Motions by December 14, 2012.
(See id. at 2.)
It appears that the plaintiff thereafter timely
filed both a motion relating to discovery and a written request for
additional time to oppose the Defendants’ Newly-Filed Motions.
2
(See dkt. entry no. 144, Pl.’s Request for Add’l Time (dated
12-10-12); dkt. entry no. 145, Pl.’s Mot. (dated 12-10-12).)
See
Pabon v. Mahanoy, 654 F.3d 385, 391 n.8 (3d Cir. 2011) (“The
federal ‘prisoner mailbox rule’ provides that a document is deemed
filed on the date it is given to prison officials for mailing.”)
THE COURT has determined that the issues related to the
Subpoena must be resolved before the Court may consider the
Defendants’ Newly-Filed Motions.
For good cause appearing, the
Court will thus deny the Defendants’ Newly-Filed Motions without
prejudice and refer the plaintiff’s motion and request for
additional time to the Magistrate Judge.
See Landis v. N. Am. Co.,
299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (recognizing the Court’s inherent power to
control the docket); CTF Hotel Holdings, Inc. v. Marriott Int’l,
Inc., 381 F.3d 131, 141 (3d Cir. 2004) (same); Rolo v. Gen. Dev.
Corp., 949 F.2d 695, 702 (3d Cir. 1991) (same).
s/ Mary L. Cooper
.
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge
Date:
December 28, 2012
3
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?