Free 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 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Terry Goddard Attorney General J. Randall Jue State Bar no. 014816 Assistant Attorney General 1275 W. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997 Telephone: (602) 542-4951 Fax: (602) 542-7670 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA David Ray Walker, Case No: 03-CV-2308 PHX JWS (MEA) Plaintiff, v. Schriro, et al., Defendants. DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Defendants,1 through undersigned counsel, move for an enlargement of time to reply to the Plaintiff's response to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. This motion for enlargement of time is supported by the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 17th day of January, 2006. Terry Goddard Attorney General s/J. Randall Jue J. Randall Jue Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant
1

Charles Ryan and Bruce Kanter.
Document 62 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02308-JWS-MEA

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

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES The deadline for filing a reply to the Plaintiff's response to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is January 16, 2006 (filing date is January 17, 2006, due to the Martin Luther King Day holiday). (Dkt. 61.) The Defendants need an additional three days to comply with the Court's deadline for filing a reply to the Plaintiff's response (Dkt. 58) to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 45). Defense counsel was unable to complete the reply in time because he had to prepare for oral argument set for January 17, 2005, in Bilke v. State (CV1988-026272), file a dispositive motion in Jonas v. Schriro (04-CV-2719) on January 12, 2006, and respond to a motion to compel in Dennison v. Luna (03-CV-2373) on January 17, 2006. The Defendants request a short enlargement of time until January 20, 2006. Rule 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, permits the Court for cause shown, under its discretion, to grant an appropriate extension of time to comply with an order of the Court. Defendants are not trying to delay the timely resolution of this matter. However, Defendants contend that an enlargement of time is appropriate under the circumstances. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 17th day of January, 2006. Terry Goddard Attorney General s/J. Randall Jue J. Randall Jue Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant

Case 2:03-cv-02308-JWS-MEA

Document 62

2

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 2 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

Original e-filed this 17th day of January, 2006 to: Clerk of Court United States District Court 401 West Washington Phoenix, AZ 85003 Copy of the foregoing mailed this same date to: David Ray Walker 346 N. 15th Street Phoenix, AZ 85006 Plaintiff Pro Se

Secretary to: J. Randall Jue IDS04-0205/RMG04-20391 942870

Case 2:03-cv-02308-JWS-MEA

Document 62

3

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 3 of 3