Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 r:`LéB“" “ A“"‘`' itbéééb
____RECENED COPY
Timothy Lee Ward, 148256
1 Arizona State Prison Complex- Florence MAY 1 3 2008 V
PO t Off' B 840
2 ms lc; _°X O CLERKUS uname? comm
orence, rizona 85232-8400 D5TmCT(N:Aw;QNA
Plaintiff Pro—Per BY S DEPUTY
3
I
5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
7
) Case No.: CIV—O3—2159—PHX—ROS (JRI)
8 Timothy Lee Ward, )
) Reply to Defendants’ Response to
9 Plalntlffr ) Plaintiff Motion to Refuse
) Application of Judgment under Rule 56
10 VS· ) (F)/Motion to Stay/ Motion to
) Withdraw Plaintiff’s Motion for
11 Sgt· Cafff €t· al·· ) District Court Intervention.
)
12 Defendant ) 1 “
13 Comes now, the Plaintiff, and hereby replies to Defendants response to
14 Plaintiff motion. Plaintiff is under the impression that under Rule 56(F)
1 15 the motion itself is an affidavit. If the Court does not agree, then the V
16 Plaintiff requests this Court grant leave to file a separate affidavit.
1
17 The Plaintiff did in fact explain why the stay was needed. This Court
1
7 18 has ordered an Informal Telephonic Conference after the service of Documents
1 19 requested by Plaintiff and a meeting between the parties. There could be a
y 2O Motion to Compel filed with this Court.
21 There is also the fact that the Plaintiff has served both Defendants
22 with Requests for Admission. The Defendants were served with the P1aintiff’s
23 Request for Production on April 1, 2008. This meant that on May 1, 2008 the ,
24 responses were due. On May 7, 2008, Plaintiff requested this Court order
25
Case 2:03-cv—O2159-ROS-JRI Document 155 Filed 05/13/2008 Page 1 of 2

1 Defendants to respond. For sake of brevity and the fact of the Informal
2 Telephonic Conference, Plaintiff will withdraw that motion.
3 Wherefore, the Plaintiff, requests this Court Refuse Application of the
4 Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment or in the alternative grant a stay.
5 Respectfully submitted this QZ]; day of May, 2008
6 29/
7 Timothy Lee Ward
Plaintiff Pro-Per
8
9 Copies of the Foregong mailed this Q day of May, 2008, to:
10 Office of the ciefk
United States District Court
11 401 West Washington Street, SPC—1
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
12
Ms. Michele L. Forney, Attorney
13 Office of the Attorney General
1275 West Washington
14 Phoenix, Arizona 85007
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:03-cv—02159-ROS-JRI Document 155 Filed 05/13/2008 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-02159-ROS-JRI

Document 155

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-02159-ROS-JRI

Document 155

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 2 of 2