Free Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2

ANDREW P. THOMAS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY By: JOSEPH I. VIGIL State Bar No. 018677 MARIA R. BRANDON State Bar No. 004249 [email protected] Deputy County Attorneys MCAO Firm No. 00032000

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

CIVIL DIVISION Security Center Building 222 North Central Avenue, Suite 1100 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2206 Telephone (602) 506-8541 Attorneys for Joseph M. Arpaio and Captain Tate

10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 12 Alvin LaRue Pinkoson, 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22
Case 2:03-cv-01928-ROS-MEA Document 391 Filed 01/03/2007 Page 1 of 4

NO. CV03-1928-PHX-MHM (MEA) MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO SUBMIT DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS AND JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT (Second Request)

Defendants, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby requests an enlargement of time of deadlines for the submission of Dispositive Motions and

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

the Joint Pretrial Statement. 1

This Motion is submitted pursuant to Rule 6,

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 7.3, Local Rule of Civil Procedure. On or about June 28, 2004 the Plaintiff filed this Complaint with the Court claiming that the "totality" of the conditions in the jail violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Among the issues he raised was the fact that the jail was so overcrowded that he did not receive recreation, he was not allowed to attend religious services and he was assaulted by other inmates. On November 8, 2005 Defendants answered the Complaint and on November 9, 2005 a scheduling order was issued in this case. According to that Scheduling Order dispositive motions were due on June 30, 2006 and the Joint Pretrial Statement was due July 28, 2006, or within 90 days of the Court's ruling on dispositive motions. All discovery was to be served no later than April 21, 2006. Undersigned counsel and the Plaintiff have undergone discovery in this case and Plaintiff's deposition has been taken. Undersigned counsel previously asked this Court for an extension of time to submit the dispositive motions in this case and for an extension of time to submit the Joint Pretrial Statement. At that time it was anticipated that undersigned counsel would be able to submit the dispositive motions within the time requested and the Court extended the time to submit dispositive motions until December 1, 2006. The time for filing the Joint Pretrial Statement was extended until February 2, 2007. Undersigned counsel
1

22

If there is a dispositive motion filed, which the Defendants intend to file, then the deadline for the submission of the Joint Pretrial Statement would be submitted within 60 days of the Court's ruling on the dispositive motion.

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

Document 392

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

was not able to finalize Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss 2 due to a number of reasons, including a significant change in personnel in the office (undersigned counsel's secretary and paralegal have both recently been replaced) and having to take over the partial case load for attorney's who left the office. Because of this, there has been some confusion as to the deadlines in certain cases and the December 1, 2006 deadline was missed by the Defendants. Undersigned counsel has prepared the dispostive motions and is lodging those Motions with the Court simultaneously with the filing of this Motion. Defendants believe that these motions will be the most expedient way to resolve this matter and by allowing these Motions to be filed the Court will, at the very least, limit the number of issues that would need to be tried. Undersigned counsel requests that the Court extend the deadline for the submission of the Joint Pretrial Statement by the parties to 30 - 60 days after the Court has ruled on the dispositive motions. This Joint Pretrial Statement is not due until February 2, 2007. This is the second extension of these timeframes that is being requested and it will be the last request for an extension of time There is no likelihood that the Plaintiff will be prejudiced by the extension of these deadlines. If Defendants would have submitted their motion on December 1, 2006 the briefing for those motions, responses and replies would still be

Due to the nature of the defenses being asserted by the Defendants it is necessary to submit two different Motions in order to address these issues.

2

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

Document 393

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

ongoing. This request is being made in good faith and is not meant to delay these proceedings. Rather, by allowing the dispositive motion to be filed the Court will conserve time and narrow issues for trial, if trial is necessary. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 3rd day of January 2007.

ANDREW P. THOMAS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY

BY: /s/Joseph I. Vigil JOSEPH I. VIGIL MARIA R. BRANDON Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Joseph M. Arpaio and Captain Tate

ORIGINAL of the foregoing E-FILED and copies MAILED this _3rd _ day of January 2007to: Alvin LaRue Pinkoson #127807 ASPC-Tucson Manzanita Unit PO Box 24401 Tucson, Arizona 85734 Plaintiff Pro Per /s/Michele Haney

17
CJ05-407

18 19 20 21 22

S:\COUNSEL\Civil\Matters\CJ\2005\Pinkoson CJ05-407\Pleadings\Motion to Enlarge 1-3-07.doc

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

Document 394

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 4 of 4