Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00670/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00670-10/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

Allan K. Morgal, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV-07-0670-PHX-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Maricopa County Board of, )

Supervisors, )

)

Defendants. )

 )

On July 3, 2012, plaintiff pro se Allan K. Morgal filed a

“Request for more time to Respond to Defendant[’]s Motion for

Summary Judgment[,]” which was docketed as a motion and the

court has deemed to be a motion. Mot. (Doc. 160) at 1. The

defendant did not file a response to this motion. Shortly

thereafter, on July 9, 2012, plaintiff filed a “Request for

Discovery[.]” Mot. (Doc. 161). Construing that “Request” as a

motion, this court allowed defendants to file a response. Ord.

(Doc. 163) at 2:19-22. Defendants timely filed a response on

August 1, 2012 (Doc. 165). Thus, in accordance with this

court’s prior order, plaintiff has “seven (7) days after service

of [that] response, . . . , to file a reply if he so desires.”

Case 2:07-cv-00670-RCB Document 170 Filed 08/03/12 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 -

Given what it perceived, in hindsight perhaps inaccurately,

the relationship between plaintiff’s motion for an extension of

time and his discovery motion, this court deliberately held the

former motion in abeyance, anticipating that it would resolve

both issues at once. The discovery motion is not yet ripe for

this court’s consideration in that there is time for plaintiff

to file a reply if he so chooses. In the meantime, on August

2, 2012, plaintiff filed his response to defendant’s motion for

summary judgment, included voluminous exhibits thereto. See

Docs. 165-169. Those filings render moot plaintiff’s motion for

an extension of time. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s “Request for more time to Respond to

Defendant[’]s Motion for Summary Judgment[]” is DENIED as moot;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, by way of clarification, that:

(2) in the interest of justice, Plaintiff’s Response

to defendant’s summary judgment motion (Doc. 165), and

accompanying filings (Docs. 166, 167, 168, and 169) are deemed

to have been timely filed; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(3) also in the interest of justice, defendant shall

have fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this order in

Case 2:07-cv-00670-RCB Document 170 Filed 08/03/12 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 -

which to file, if any, a reply to plaintiff’s response to

defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

DATED this 2nd day of August, 2012.

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se

Case 2:07-cv-00670-RCB Document 170 Filed 08/03/12 Page 3 of 3