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

Felipe J. Martinez, Plaintiff, vs. James Baird, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CIV 03-1729 PHX-RCB (LOA) ORDER

This matter arises on Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Deadline for Submitting Motion for Summary Judgment. (document # 72) Defendants do not oppose the motion. Plaintiff explains that he filed this case while incarcerated in the ADOC-Buckeye. While discovery was ongoing, Plaintiff was released for a term of community supervision (parole) on March 20, 2005. Plaintiff claims that he completed discovery in April of 2005. Plaintiff claims that on June 30, 2005, he violated the conditions of his release, surrendered to the Tucson Police Department, and was placed in the Pima County Jail. Plaintiff claims that he is currently on twenty-four hour lockdown at the Arizona State Prison in Tucson and does not have possession of his legal materials which are at the residence where he stayed while on community release. Plaintiff states that he is having difficulty getting his legal documents back into the prison facility. He requests until October 1, 2005 to file a motion for summary judgment. The Revised Scheduling Order provides that dispositive motions are due on August 15, 2005. (document # 61) Plaintiff does not explain why he was unable to prepare a motion for
Case 2:03-cv-01729-RCB Document 74 Filed 08/08/2005 Page 1 of 2

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

summary judgment between April 1, 2005 when he allegedly completed discovery and June 30, 2005 when he was taken into custody and placed in the Pima County Jail. Plaintiff's own actions have resulted in his return to the Arizona Department of Corrections and have caused the difficulty he is experiencing in accessing his legal files which are no longer in the ADOC because Plaintiff took them with him when he was released on parole. Because Plaintiff's own actions have created the difficulties which Plaintiff is experiencing with respect to complying with the dispositive motion deadline, the Court is inclined to deny his motion. However, in an abundance of caution and because Defendants do not object to the extension, the Court will extend the dispositive motion deadline to September 30, 2005. The Court will not grant further extensions of this deadline in the absence of extraordinary circumstances in view of the age of this case. After consideration of this matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (document # 72) is GRANTED to the extent that dispositive motions are due on or before September 30, 2005. DATED this 8th day of August, 2005.

Case 2:03-cv-01729-RCB

-2Document 74 Filed 08/08/2005

Page 2 of 2