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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Pending before the court is a motion filed by the plaintiff on May 27, 2005, for an 17 enlargement of time to file a response to the defendants' reply in support of their motion for 18 summary judgment. [doc. # 100] The defendants filed a response on June 3, 2005, opposing 19 the motion. 20 Also pending is a motion filed by the defendants on June 13, 2005, to strike the 21 plaintiff's surreply to the defendants' reply in support of their motion for summary judgment. 22 [doc. # 106] The plaintiff did not file a response. 23 Also pending is a motion filed by the plaintiff on June 27, 2005, for additional time 24 to file a replacement response brief if the court finds his response to the defendants' motion 25 for summary judgment procedurally inadequate. [doc. # 111] The defendants did not file a 26 response. 27 28
Case 2:04-cv-00593-SMM-GEE Document 112 Filed 08/17/2005 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Corrections Corporation of America, et al.) ) ) Defendants. ) ) Allen P. Branco,

No. CIV 04-593 PHX SMM (GEE) ORDER

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

Discussion The plaintiff in this case filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming he was injured and denied adequate medical care when he was struck by an automatic gate while incarcerated at the Florence Correctional Center in Florence, Arizona. On March 2, 2005, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. [doc. # 73] The plaintiff filed a response on April 25, 2005. [doc. # 93] The defendants filed a reply on May 5, 2005. [doc. # 97] On May 27, 2005, the plaintiff filed the instant motion for an enlargement of time to file a response to the defendants' reply in support of their motion for summary judgment. [doc. # 100] The defendants filed a response on June 3, 2005, opposing the motion. On the same day, Branco filed his response to the defendants' reply. [doc. # 105] As the defendants correctly point out, the Local Rules do not contemplate a response to a reply, also know as a surreply. See Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona LRCiv 7.2. A motion is considered properly briefed when the court receives a motion, a response, and a reply. Id. Accordingly, Branco's motion for an enlargement of time will be denied and the defendants' motion to strike will be granted. The court further observes that, in a footnote in their reply brief [doc. # 97], the defendants move to strike the response [doc. # 93] because it is too long and is not accompanied by a statement of facts. Part of Branco's surreply (which will be stricken at the request of the defendants) is devoted to a response to these motions to strike. Accordingly, it would not be fair for the court to seriously entertain the defendants' motions to strike. These "motions" will not be considered by the court. The defendants are instructed that if they intend to submit a motion for the attention of the court they should file that motion as a separate pleading and not include that motion as a footnote within another unrelated pleading. If the defendants intend to file a motion to strike in the proper manner, they may do so. On June 27, 2005, Branco filed the instant motion for additional time to file a replacement response brief if the court finds his response to the defendants' motion for -2Document 112 Filed 08/17/2005 Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00593-SMM-GEE

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

summary judgment procedurally inadequate. [doc. # 111] This motion will be denied as moot. If the defendants file a proper motion to strike, Branco may file a proper response. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion filed by the plaintiff on May 27, 2005, for an enlargement of time to file a response to the defendants' reply in support of their motion for summary judgment is DENIED. [doc. # 100] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion filed by the defendants on June 13, 2005, to strike the plaintiff's surreply to the defendants' reply in support of their motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. [doc. # 106] The CLERK is instructed to STRIKE document # 105. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to strike contained in document # 97 are DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion filed by the plaintiff on June 27, 2005, for additional time to file a replacement response brief if the court finds his response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment procedurally inadequate is DENIED without prejudice. [doc. # 111]

DATED this 16th day of August, 2005.

-3Case 2:04-cv-00593-SMM-GEE Document 112 Filed 08/17/2005 Page 3 of 3