McKinney v. Mills et al

Filing 23

ORDER granting the 21 Motion for Extension of Time; and RE-NOTING the 13 MOTION to Dismiss to 9/11/2009, signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG; copy mailed to Plaintiff)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 v. JOHN MILLS, Defendant. Before the Court is Plaintiff=s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant's Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 21. Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 13) is presently noted for July 31, 2008. Plaintiff requests an extension because of recent medical procedures and transfer to a new facility. Dkt. 21. Defendant has not filed a response in opposition to the request for an extension. The Court finds that Plaintiff should be granted an extension of time to respond to the pending motion to dismiss. Plaintiff states that he will present "evidence and argument that will support a claim of physical injury caused in whole or in part by the assaultive conduct of Officer Mills." Dkt. 4, p. 6. However, he has not filed a motion to amend or provided an amended complaint for the Court=s review. His response to the motion to dismiss is limited to those facts originally alleged in his complaint. Based on that response, the Court will UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISCTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA JONATHAN W. MCKINNEY, Plaintiff, NO. C08-5720 BHS/KLS ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

determine whether he shall be given an opportunity to amend his pleading in order to cure any deficiencies. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: (1) (2) Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (Dkt. 21) is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file his response to the motion to dismiss (Dkt. 13) on or before

September 11, 20091. (3) (4) Defendants= reply shall be due on or before September 11, 2009. The court clerk shall re-note the motion to dismiss (Dkt. 13) for the court=s

consideration for September 11, 2009. (5) Defendants. DATED this 21st day of August, 2009. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to Plaintiff and counsel for

A

Karen L. Strombom United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff states that he is proceeding under the presumption that the court has rescheduled the hearing of this motion due to Defendant's inability to arrange telephonic participation of the Plaintiff. However, unless otherwise ordered by the court, all motions will be decided by the court without oral argument. Counsel shall not appear on the date the motion is noted unless directed by the court. If a request for oral argument is granted, the clerk will notify the parties of the date and time for argument. CR 7.

1

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS

2