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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, ) CAPTAIN TATE, ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________) ALVIN LARUE PINKOSON,

CIV 03-01928 PHX ROS (MEA) ORDER

On November 10, 2005, a scheduling order regarding Plaintiff's amended complaint required dispositive motions in this matter to be filed on or before June 30, 2006. parties engaged in discovery and Plaintiff was deposed. The The

deadline for filing dispositive motions was twice extended. On January 3, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and on January 4, 2007, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. In an order filed January 19, 2007, Plaintiff was notified of the filing of the motion to dismiss and ordered to file any response to the motion on or before February 19, 2007. ordered In an order filed January 22, 2007, Plaintiff was to respond to the motion for summary judgment by

February 19, 2007, and warned any failure to respond could be deemed a concession to the motion. Plaintiff received two
Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01928-ROS-MEA

Document 55

Filed 07/06/2007

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

extensions of the time allowed Plaintiff to respond to the dispositive motions filed by Defendants. Plaintiff's Plaintiff

responses to the motions were due by June 27, 2007.

has now had five months to prepare responses to the motions filed by Defendants in January of 2007, after more than one year of conducting discovery. The Court notes Plaintiff has

previously filed section 1983 suits which have been resolved by summary judgment, making Plaintiff previously aware of the time constraints regarding responding to motions for summary judgment. On July 2, 2007, the Court received Plaintiff's third motion to extend the time allowed to respond to Defendants' dispositive motions, which motion does not specify how much extra time Plaintiff seeks. The only reason stated by

Plaintiff for his inability to timely file responses to the motions is the alleged lack of a librarian at the prison unit where Plaintiff is incarcerated, resulting in an inability to get his pleadings notarized. Five months is sufficient amount of time within which Plaintiff could reasonably be expected to respond to

Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff has not

established good cause for his failure to comply with the time limits specified by the Court. However, Plaintiff is informed

that notarization of a responsive pleading is not required if the pleading includes a sworn affidavit or a signed and dated statement made under penalty of perjury affirming that the facts stated are true and correct, in compliance with 28

U.S.C. §1746.
-2-

Case 2:03-cv-01928-ROS-MEA

Document 55

Filed 07/06/2007

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

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion seeking an extension of the time allowed Plaintiff to respond to the motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment is denied insofar as it seeks an open-ended to extension motion motion of for is the deadline to file and it

responses motion to

Defendants' The

summary granted

judgment insofar as

dismiss.

requests additional time to submit response to the motions which are not notarized. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until July 20, 2007, to submit any response to Defendants' motion to dismiss and any response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff is warned that the deadline shall not be

further extended for any reason and that any pleadings filed after July 20, 2007, shall not be considered by the Court when resolving Defendants' motions. DATED this 6th day of July, 2007.

-3Case 2:03-cv-01928-ROS-MEA Document 55 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 3 of 3