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

1 2

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

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 13 Alvin LaRue Pinkoson, 14 Plaintiff, 15 v. 16 Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 17 Defendant. 18 19 20 21 22
Case 2:03-cv-01928-ROS-MEA Document 361 Filed 10/11/2006 Page 1 of 4

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

Defendants, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby request a 45 day extension 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 been undergoing discovery in this case up to the time when this Court, on September 25, 2006, ruled on the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel disclosure and discovery. Plaintiff's deposition has been taken and it appears that all of the discovery has concluded. However, final disclosure statements have not been exchanged. Undersigned counsel did not realize that the dates for the submission of dispositive motions and the joint pretrial statement had passed and for some reason the dates were not

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 362

Filed 10/11/2006

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

calendared. 2

Undersigned counsel intends on filing a Motion for Summary

Judgment in this matter to dispose of this matter, or at the very least, limit the number of issues that would need to be tried. It is expected that this Motion could be filed within 45 days. As such, Defendants request that the Court extend the dispositive motion deadline for a period of 45 days ­ which would be on or about November 25, 2006. Additionally, undersigned counsel requests that the Court extend the

deadline for the submission of the Joint Pretrial Statement by the parties to 60 days after the Court has ruled on the dispositive motions. This is the first

extension of these timeframes that is being requested. The Court did previously extend the time to take Plaintiff's deposition. There is no likelihood that the Plaintiff will be prejudiced by the extension of these deadlines and 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. ... ... ... ... ...

2

22

Defense counsel acknowledges that a copy of the scheduling order was in the file.

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

Document 363

Filed 10/11/2006

Page 3 of 4

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

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this

11th

day of October 2006.

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 _11th_ day of October 2006 to: Honorable Mary H. Murguia United States District Court Judge Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse 401 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85003 Honorable Mark E. Aspey United States Magistrate Judge 123 North San Francisco Street, Ste 200 Flagstaff, AZ 86001 I hereby certify that on October 11, 2006, I served the attached document by mail on the following, who are not registered participants of the CM/ECF system: Alvin LaRue Pinkoson #127807 ASPC-Tucson Manzanita Unit PO Box 24401 Tucson, Arizona 85734 Plaintiff Pro Per /s/Michele Haney
CJ05-407 S:\COUNSEL\Civil\Matters\CJ\2005\Pinkoson CJ05-407\Pleadings\Motion to Enlarge 10-11-06.doc

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

Document 364

Filed 10/11/2006

Page 4 of 4