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 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff is mistaken that the Court granted him 40 days from the receipt of the legal materials to file a response. The Court granted him 40 days from the date of the filing of the Order to file a response. Plaintiff mistakenly concludes that the 40-day deadline would have granted him to September 10, 2005 to file his response. The 40-day extension granted him 40 days from July 26, 2005 (to September 6, 2005) to file the response.
Document 89 Filed 09/02/2005 Page 1 of 3
2 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Doyle Burns, Plaintiff, vs. Charles Ryan, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV 03-2273-PHX-JWS (MS)

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff's "Affidavit Clarification for Extension of Time" filed August 24, 2005 and "Motion for Temporary Appointment of Counsel and Expert Witnesses to Cross Examine Defendants and Witnesses" filed August 25, 2005. In his motion for extension of time, Plaintiff seeks clarification of the Court's July 26, 2005 Order (which granted Plaintiff 40 days from the filing of that Order to respond to Defendants' motion for summary judgment1) and the Court's August 18, 2005 Order (which granted Plaintiff an additional 30 days from the date that Order was filed to file his response). Plaintiff seeks clarification to the extent that Plaintiff requests that the 30 days be added to the previous 40-day deadline2 to allow for his

Case 2:03-cv-02273-JWS-MS

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

response to be filed October 10, 2005. Plaintiff states that he did not receive his legal materials until August 2, 2005. In his motion for temporary appointment, Plaintiff states that assistance is necessary to cross-examine Defendants' expert witnesses. Plaintiff further avers that he requires appointment of an expert witness because he does not have the medical knowledge necessary to understand the treatment and care given to him for his prostrate cancer. The Court will deny Plaintiff's motion for extension of time and/or clarification. The Court's August 18, 2005 Order makes it clear that Plaintiff has 30 days from the filing of that Order to file his response, and that no further requests for extension of time will be entertained. The Court will deny Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel and appointment of expert witnesses. The Court will not reiterate the standard for appointment of counsel, as the Court has stated the standard in a previous order. There is no provision of law that authorizes the appointment of an expert in cases of this type at the expense of the Government and on the basis of the record before the Court. There is presently no requirement that Defendants should be ordered to pay the costs of retaining an expert for the Plaintiff or for the benefit of the Court. Plaintiff should endeavor to complete his response to the motion for summary judgment to the best of his ability, and toward this end the Court has provided in its Order filed June 16, 2005 (Doc. # 74) excerpts of relevant provisions of rules of procedure. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's "Affidavit Clarification for Extension of Time" filed August 24, 2005 is DENIED to the extent that no further extension of time to respond to the motion for summary judgment will be granted beyond that contained in the Court's August 18, 2005 Order. That is, Plaintiff shall have to September 19, 2005 to file his response.
-2Document 89 Filed 09/02/2005

Case 2:03-cv-02273-JWS-MS

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 27 28

2.

Plaintiff's "Motion for Temporary Appointment of Counsel and Expert Witnesses to Cross Examine Defendants and Witnesses" filed August 25, 2005 is DENIED without prejudice.

DATED this 1st day of September, 2005.

Case 2:03-cv-02273-JWS-MS

-3Document 89 Filed 09/02/2005

Page 3 of 3