Free 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

TERRY GODDARD Attorney General CATHERINE M. BOHLAND Assistant Attorney General Bar No. 022124 1275 W. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997 Phone: (602) 542-4951 Fax: (602) 542-7670 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Mark E. Hampton, Plaintiff, v. Charles Ryan, et al., Defendants. Defendants1, through undersigned counsel, move the Court for an Order enlarging the time for Defendants to file their Reply in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 59.) Defendants request an enlargement of thirty (30) days from No: CV03-1706-PHX-NVW (VAM) MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. 59)

November 2, 2006, or until December 2, 2006. Undersigned counsel has conferred with Plaintiff's attorney and he does not object to an extension of time. This motion is

supported by good cause and is not made to cause undue delay. This motion is supported by the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto.

1

Dora Schriro, Conrad Luna and Barbara Shearer.
Document 67 Filed 10/19/2006 Page 1 of 5

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

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 I.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION Plaintiff filed his Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting Statement of Facts on October 18, 2006. (Dkt. 66.) Defendants' Reply is due to the Court on November 2, 2006. This case involves multiple Eighth Amendment and due process violations due to Plaintiff's status as a Security Threat Group ("STG") member, as well as, a medical indifference claim due to medical-related issues. Undersigned counsel needs adequate time in which to draft a Reply on the multiple issues and to contact appropriate ADC medical staff as to Plaintiff's Response concerning the medical indifference claim. II. LEGAL ARGUMENT Rule 6 (b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, permits the Court for cause shown in its discretion, to grant an appropriate extension of time to comply with an order of the Court. In this case the Plaintiff will not be prejudiced. The length of enlargement sought by counsel will most likely have a positive rather than a negative impact on the judicial proceedings by eliminating issues and arguments which are unsupported as a matter of law. Defendants' counsel asserts that the reasons set forth above constitute good cause for the Court to exercise its discretion. Therefore, Defendants respectfully request an enlargement of thirty (30) days for filing of Defendants' Reply, until December 2, 2006. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 19th day of October, 2006. TERRY GODDARD Attorney General

s/Catherine M. Bohland Catherine M. Bohland Assistant Attorney General

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 67

2

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 2 of 5

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

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 67

3

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 3 of 5

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

Original and one copy filed this 19th day of October, 2006, with: Clerk of the Court United States District Court 401 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Copy mailed the same date to: Robert L. Storrs Robert L. Storrs, P.C. 45 W. Jefferson, Suite 803 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2317 Attorney for Plaintiff s/A. Palumbo Legal Secretary to Catherine M. Bohland IDS04-0363/RSK:GG04-20823
#983621

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 67

4

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 4 of 5

1 2 3 4 Mark E. Hampton, 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

No: CV03-1706-PHX-NVW (VAM) ORDER

Plaintiff, 6 v. 7 Charles Ryan, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The Court having considered Defendants' motion for enlargement of time and no objection by Plaintiff, and finding good cause: IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion is GRANTED and the deadline to file Defendants' Reply in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment is extended until December 2, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 67

5

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 5 of 5