Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01586/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01586-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

1

 A prohibitory injunction preserves the status quo. Johnson v.

Kay, 860 F.2d 529, 541 (2d Cir.1988). A mandatory injunction

“ ‘goes well beyond simply maintaining the status quo pendente

lite [and] is particularly disfavored.’ ” Anderson v. United

States, 612 F.2d 1112, 1114 (9th Cir.1979) (quoting Martinez v.

Mathews, 544 F.2d 1233, 1243 (5th Cir.1976)). When a

mandatory preliminary injunction is requested, the district court

should deny such relief “‘unless the facts and law clearly favor

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Gherman, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan; et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1586-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Several motions are pending before the Court. First, Petitioner seeks an extension of

time to file his reply in support of his motion for discovery and motion for appointment of

counsel. As this Court indicated in the Order of March 8, 2010, the Clerk’s office did not

reject the reply at Doc. #66 and the Court will consider that reply. Therefore, Petitioner does

not need additional time to file an amended reply.

Next, Petitioner seeks to have this Court order Defendants to give him access to a

word processor. This request is construed as a request for a mandatory injunction.1

 On this

Case 2:07-cv-01586-JAT Document 77 Filed 03/19/10 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

the moving party.’” Id.

Stanley v. Univ. of S. Calif., 13 F.3d 1313, 1320 (9th Cir. 1994). 

- 2 -

record the Court finds no basis for Ordering Defendants to provide Plaintiff with a word

processor; accordingly, that request will be denied.

Finally, Petitioner has requested an extension of time to file his reply to his request

for an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner seeks an additional 30 days. The Report and

Recommendation in this case was filed September 30, 2009. By law, Petitioner had 10 days

to respond. Petitioner has sought and received various extensions of time to file his

objections. Beyond his objections, Petitioner has now also filed a request for appointment

of counsel, a request for discovery, and a request for an evidentiary hearing. The Court finds

giving Petitioner six months to get all of his briefing together to be more than adequate.

Accordingly, Petitioner will be granted an extension of time until April 1, 2010 to file this

last reply. Thereafter, the Court will proceed to considering this case; even if Petitioner fails

to have his reply on file by then. In other words, the will be no further extension of this

deadline.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for leave to file amended reply (Doc. #73)

is denied as unnecessary.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file

his reply in support of his motion for evidentiary hearing (Doc. #74) is granted to the limited

extent that Petitioner has an extension of time until April 1, 2010 to file his reply.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for access to a word processor

(Doc. #75) is denied.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-01586-JAT Document 77 Filed 03/19/10 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 -

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondents’ motion for extension of time (Doc.

#76) to respond to the word processor motion is denied as moot.

DATED this 19th day of March, 2010.

Case 2:07-cv-01586-JAT Document 77 Filed 03/19/10 Page 3 of 3