Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01408/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01408-3/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

Sheldon Walker, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1408-PHX-JWS (LOA)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to

Respond to Defendant’s [Motion] for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 149)

Plaintiff filed a Section 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, alleging six counts of

constitutional violations, on July 7, 2010. (Doc. 1) Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis

status on September 15, 2010, and his complaint was dismissed in part and allowed to

proceed in part. Defendants Ryan and Dunn were ordered to be served and answer the

complaint, with respect to Count I for Defendant Ryan and Counts I, II and III with respect

to Defendant Dunn. (Id. at pgs. 4, 5-6) 

Plaintiff was granted leave to amend his complaint, doc. 19, and the First Amended

Complaint was filed on December 30, 2010, doc. 20. The Court ordered Defendants Dunn

and Ryan to answer Counts I, II and III, Defendants Ramos and Ryan to answer Count IV,

Defendants Ryan, Ramos and Dunn to answer Count V, and Defendants Swaney, Caldwell,

Barrett, Watson and Smith-Whitson to answer Count VI. (Doc. 19) On April 20, 2011, the

Case 2:10-cv-01408-JWS Document 150 Filed 09/07/12 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

- 2 -

Court allowed Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint to substitute Defendant Watson

with Defendant Kurtz. (Docs. 40, 41) The Court later granted Plaintiff’s Motion to

Substitute Defendant Swanson for Defendant Kurtz and to voluntarily dismiss the claims

against Defendant Kurtz. (Doc. 138) On March 1, 2012, the Court granted Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss Count VI and dismissed Defendants Caldwell, Swaney, Barrett, SmithWhitson, and Swanson. (Doc. 111) 

On June 29, 2012, Defendants moved for an extension of time in which to file

dispositive motions. (Doc. 137) The Court granted Defendants’ motion, but also ordered

that no further extensions would be granted. (Doc. 138 at 2) Defendants filed their Motion

for Summary Judgment on August 13, 2012, doc. 146, and the Court ordered that Plaintiff

had until September 17, 2012 in which to file his Response. (Doc. 148) On August 27,

2012, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Extension of Time to File his Response to Defendants’

Motion. (Doc. 149) In his request, Plaintiff asks for an additional thirty (30) days in which

to file his response to Defendants’ Motion because the Court has not yet ruled on Plaintiff’s

Motion to Compel, doc. 134, which Plaintiff contends plays a role in his response to the

Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 149 at 1) Plaintiff further alleges that he has had a

difficult time scheduling legal research time in the prison resource center. (Id.) 

The Court has taken Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel under advisement. Plaintiff will

not be ordered to file his response until further order from the Court. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to

Defendant’s [Motion] for Summary Judgment, doc. 149, is GRANTED. Plaintiff does not

need to file his Response until further order setting said time for a response is entered by the

Court. 

Dated this 6th day of September. 

Case 2:10-cv-01408-JWS Document 150 Filed 09/07/12 Page 2 of 2