Free Order on Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Paul E. Rhodes,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Quirino Valeras, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________)

CV 04-644-PHX-JAT (MS)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's "Motion for Extension of Time" (Doc. # 54).
16

Plaintiff avers that the discovery disputes previously articulated to the Court, see Doc.
17

# 47, have not yet been resolved and, because of circumstances in the prison, he is
18

unable to file his completed motion to resolve the discovery disputes. Further, Plaintiff
19

requests an additional 45-60 days beyond what it requires to resolve the discovery
20

disputes to prepare a dispositive motion, currently due on February 3, 2006.
21

Defendants have not filed a response.
22

On November 18, 2005 Plaintiff filed his first Motion to Correct Discovery Issues
23

(Doc. # 47). Defendants responded that they were actively attempting to comply with
24

Plaintiff's discovery requests. As a result, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion without
25

prejudice as premature (Doc. # 49). Thereafter, on January 13, 2006, the Court
26

received Defendants' "Response to [Second] Motion to Correct Discovery Issues" (Doc.
27

# 52), without having received Plaintiff's motion. Consequently, the Court struck
28

Defendants' response, advising Plaintiff that he must refile his motion for consideration
Case 2:04-cv-00644-JAT-LOA Document 60 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 1 of 2

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 27 28

by the Court. Plaintiff avows that he has the motion to correct discovery issues prepared, but is unable to file it because he is unable to obtain copies of his motion.1 Dispositive motions in this case are currently due on February 3, 2006. While Plaintiff avers that he desires Court intervention with respect to discovery issues, the Court is unwilling to indefinitely postpone these proceedings until the discovery disputes are resolved, especially in light of the fact that no motion to resolve discovery disputes has been filed. The Court will deny Plaintiff's motion to extend these proceedings until such time as all discovery disputes have been resolved. However, the Court will, sua sponte, grant the parties an additional 30 days to file their dispositive motions. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Motion for Extension of Time" (Doc. # 54) is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court, sua sponte, grants the parties an additional 30 days to file their dispositive motions. Dispositive motions shall be filed no later than March 3, 2006.

DATED this 3rd day of February, 2006.

It is, however, unclear to the Court how Plaintiff is able to file a motion for extension of time, but is unable to file his motion to correct discovery issues. In addition, Plaintiff has since filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint with a lodged amended complaint totaling 19 pages without difficulty. Case 2:04-cv-00644-JAT-LOA 2 Document 60 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 2 of 2

1