Doe v. Olson et al

Filing 42

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. granting 40 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply; denying 41 Motion for Reconsideration. (KT) Distributed on 2/24/2015. (rh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
NORTHWESTERN DIVISION
Jose Doe,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Jason T. Olson, Chief of Police, Minot
)
Police Department; Sgt. Dave Goodman,
)
in his individual and official capacities;
)
Detective Thompson, in her individual and )
official capacities; Detective Jesse Smith, )
in his individual and official capacities;
)
Criminal Investigation Bureau, and
)
an Unknown Number of Unknown Federal )
(ICE) and City of Minot Agents of Law
)
Enforcement,
)
)
Defendants.
)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME; DENYING
MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

Case No. 4:14-cv-119

Before the court are a “Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant’s Motions
to Dismiss, Affidavits, and Etc.” and a “Motion for Counsel or Motion for Ruling on Appeal of
Appointment of Counsel; Expedited” filed by plaintiff Jose Doe.
In the motion for extension of time, plaintiff requests additional time to respond to the
“Minot Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment” filed
February 10, 2015. The court has reviewed the Minot defendants’ motion as well as the “Motion
to Dismiss” filed by defendant Jesse Smith on February 13, 2015, and concludes that it is
appropriate to suspend further briefing of the motions until after the court holds a telephonic status
conference with the parties. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (Docket No. 40)
is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s deadlines to respond to the Minot defendant’s motion to dismiss or for

1

summary judgment (Docket Nos. 31 & 39) and to defendant Jesse Smith’s motion to dismiss
(Docket No. 36) are extended to a date to be set during the telephone conference. The court will
contact the parties to schedule the telephone conference at a later date.
To the extent plaintiff’s motion for counsel requests the undersigned to reconsider the
previous order denying his request for court-appointed counsel, the undersigned concludes that
appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. Accordingly, the motion (Docket No. 41) is
DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff’s appeal of the undersigned’s initial order denying his request
for court-appointed counsel remains pending before the district judge.
Dated this 24th day of February, 2015.
/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr., Magistrate Judge
United States District Court

2