Free Order - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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 vs. Officer Ortega, et al., Defendant. Jay Jeffers, Jr., Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 04-572-PHX-MHM (MS) ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Before the Court is Plaintiff's "Notice Clearification [sic] Notice" filed on August 12, 2005. In his Notice, Plaintiff states that the Pinal County Jail will not allow him to receive his legal materials from his sister, and that the jail will not provide him writing materials. Plaintiff states that because of his incarceration, he was unable to attend his deposition. Plaintiff also requests that the Court order the jail to return portions of a money order that Plaintiff states he did not receive. This case has been pending since March 2004. In addition to delays

occurring from Plaintiff's attempts to amend the complaint, and to serve certain defendants, further delay will now occur because a whole new set of obstacles have allegedly arisen because of Plaintiff's reincarceration. The Court advises the parties no further delays in this already protracted litigation will be tolerated. Accordingly, the Court will order counsel for Defendants to file with the Court, within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order, a document addressing Plaintiff's access in the Pinal County Jail to his legal paperwork and minimal legal

Case 2:04-cv-00572-MHM-LOA

Document 59

Filed 08/17/2005

Page 1 of 3

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

materials that will enable Plaintiff to bring this case to a close (e.g., paper, pencil, mailing materials). Counsel for Defendants should attempt to resolve this issue, if one truly exists, with the Pinal County Jail system. If Plaintiff's term of incarceration is of short duration, Defendants shall include such averment in its filing. Defendants shall also state in their filing whether Plaintiff's deposition has been rescheduled. The Court will extend the deadlines in this case one last time to accommodate: (1) Plaintiffs recent reincarceration, and (2) Defendant Spurlock and Lizzorage's Answer, if filed. If Plaintiff intends to pursue repeated civil rights actions in this Court, whether incarcerated or not, he should be prepared to litigate his claims in a timely manner. The Court will not entertain further any matter that is unrelated to the amended complaint in this case, including any averment related to Plaintiff's inmate account. Lastly, if Plaintiff changes his address, he must immediately inform the Court. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Defendants shall file, within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order, a document explaining access to the Court issues raised by Plaintiff's August 12, 2005 filing, to the extent ordered herein. 2. Plaintiff shall file, within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order, a Notice of Change of Address. 3. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the address stated on the August 12, 2005 filing. 4. The deadlines contained in the Court's April 14, 2005 Order are AMENDED as follows:1 ///

In addition to applying to existing parties, these deadlines shall apply to Defendants Spurlock and Lizzorage, if and when these Defendants file an Answer. -2Document 59 Filed 08/17/2005 Page 2 of 3

1

Case 2:04-cv-00572-MHM-LOA

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

A.

Last day by which discovery requests may be submitted (discovery request cutoff date): November 4, 2005

B.

If defendants desire to take plaintiff's deposition they may do so by no later than: November 18, 2005

C.

Discovery disputes must be brought to the attention of the court by: December 2, 2005

D. E.

The dispositive motion deadline is:

December 16, 2005

Proposed Joint Pretrial Order lodged with the Court by: January 27, 2006

The Court will not entertain any request for an extension of these deadlines without exceptional cause. Although this Order extends certain deadlines, Plaintiff may not submit repetitive discovery requests to any Defendant.

DATED this 16th day of August, 2005.

-3Case 2:04-cv-00572-MHM-LOA Document 59 Filed 08/17/2005 Page 3 of 3