Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - 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 Before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for Court's Permission to file Reply to Defendant's Response (doc. #87). This court previously granted defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, with no response having been filed thereto. The Clerk of the Court erroneously entered a judgment, which this court's order granting summary judgment did not call for. Therefore this court vacated the judgment. Nevertheless, this court's order granting the Motions for Summary Judgment still stands. Plaintiff's "Notice" (doc. #81) has been treated by the court as a motion to reconsider this court's order granting defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (doc. #78). In the current motion, plaintiff asks leave to file a reply to the defendants' response to the motion for reconsideration or to file a revised motion for reconsideration. The court will grant plaintiff leave to file a revised motion for reconsideration. In that motion, plaintiff must demonstrate by affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury that he did not receive the Motions for Summary Judgment or the magistrate judge's order setting
Document 89 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kerry Allynn Chase, Plaintiff, vs. Brian Cox, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV 04-056 PHX NVW ORDER

Case 2:04-cv-00056-NVW-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 schedule for responding to those motions. The sworn evidence should include all the relevant circumstances concerning plaintiff's locations and mailing addresses at all relevant times, and what mailing was received in the same general time. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Court's Permission to File Reply Brief to Defendant's Response (doc. #87) is granted to the extent that plaintiff may file by October 15, 2005, a revised motion for reconsideration supported by affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury demonstrating that plaintiff did not receive the Motions for Summary Judgment or the magistrate judge's scheduling order. DATED this 23rd day of September, 2005.

-2Case 2:04-cv-00056-NVW-LOA Document 89 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 2 of 2