Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01159/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01159-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Barry Northcross Patterson, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 05-1159-PHX-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Charles L. Ryan, et al., )

)

Defendants. ) )

On February 1, 2012, plaintiff pro se Barry Northcross

Patterson filed a “Motion to Continue or Reinstate [the]

Stay” (Doc. 136) granted by this court on December 29, 2011

(Doc. 133). By its own terms, that stay expired on January

30, 2012. Ord. (Doc. 138) at 3:1-3. Thus, in its February

2, 2012, order, this court found plaintiff’s motion for a

continuance to be moot. Id. At the same time though, the

court found that the issue of reinstatement was “still . . .

outstanding[.]” Id. at 3:3-4. 

As this court allowed, defendants timely filed their

response to plaintiff’s motion. Defendants are seeking to 

Case 2:05-cv-01159-RCB Document 142 Filed 02/27/12 Page 1 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

- 2 -

have this court “defer its ruling until . . . Patterson

supplements his Motion with additional information.” Defs.’

Resp. (Doc. 141) at 1:17-18. Defendants’ primary concern is

the inadequacy of the record in terms of being able to assess

“whether or not [a] stay . . . is still reasonably warranted

and, if it is, how long it should last.” Id. at 2:17-18. 

Defendants point out the uncertainty surrounding plaintiff’s

eating habits, and the purported increase in his mental

health score. The latter “means that [plaintiff] may yet be

approved for a transfer to a medical facility[,]” but such a

transfer had “not occurred as of [the] writing[]” of

defendants’ response. Id. at 2:9-11 (emphasis added). 

LRCiv 7.2(d) allows a moving party seven “days after

service of the responsive memorandum to file a reply

memorandum if that party so desires.” LRCiv 7.2(d). 

Computing that time in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 6 means

that plaintiff had until February 23, 2012 in which to file a

reply. Plaintiff did not do so, however. 

Arguably of more import is that recently plaintiff has

been refusing delivery of legal mail, Defs.’ Resp., exh. A

thereto (Doc. 141-1), including a copy of this court’s

February 2, 2012 order. See Doc. 139. Such refusal, among

other things, seriously calls into question whether plaintiff

intends to continue prosecuting this action. The court

declines to speculate as to plaintiff’s intent at this

juncture, however. 

Instead, on the record as presently constituted, the

court finds that plaintiff has not established the need for

Case 2:05-cv-01159-RCB Document 142 Filed 02/27/12 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

- 3 -

reinstatement of the previously ordered stay. Consequently,

rather than deferring its ruling on that issue, as defendants

urge, this court hereby ORDERS that:

(1) Plaintiff’s “Motion to Continue or Reinstate Stay”

(Doc. 136) is DENIED in its entirety; and

(2) the previously ordered time frame in which the

parties have to file any dispositive motions is sua sponte

extended. Such motions, by any party, shall be filed no

later than March 13, 2012. Responses and replies, if any,

shall be filed in accordance with the applicable Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure as well as the Local Rules of Civil

Procedure for the District of Arizona.

DATED this 27th day of February, 2012.

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se

Case 2:05-cv-01159-RCB Document 142 Filed 02/27/12 Page 3 of 3