Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02357/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02357-1/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 

Sherman Terrell Pruitt, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-02357-PHX-DJH (ESW)

ORDER 

 The Court has considered Defendant Ryan’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order 

(Doc. 42), Defendant Ryan’s Supplement to Motion to Modify Scheduling Order (Doc. 

43), and Defendant Orson Anderson, M.D.’s Joinder (Doc. 45). No response has been 

filed. 

 Defendants seek an extension of the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines 

set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order (Doc. 24). Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights 

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 15, 2013 (Doc. 1). However, all 

issues were not joined until April 15, 2015 (Docs. 21, 22, 23). Plaintiff alleges a 

violation of his Eighth Amendment right to constitutionally adequate medical care. On 

September 10, 2015, the Court ordered that Plaintiff execute a medical release and serve 

an Initial Disclosure Statement (Doc. 35). Plaintiff now has done so. Defendants 

acknowledge that they received these records by the middle of October. Nevertheless, 

the delayed receipt of and need to analyze relevant discovery has necessitated 

Defendants’ pending Motion and Joinder. 

Case 2:13-cv-02357-DJH-ESW Document 47 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

 Pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(c), an opposing party is required to serve and file a 

responsive memorandum. If an unrepresented party fails to file a responsive 

memorandum, his “non-compliance may be deemed . . . consent to the . . . granting of the 

motion, and the court may dispose of the motion summarily.” LRCiv 7.2(i). 

 A district court has discretion to adopt local rules. . . Those rules have the ‘force of 

law’.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010) (citations omitted). Because the 

Plaintiff has failed to respond timely to the Defendants’ Motion and Joinder, the Court 

simply may summarily grant the Motion. However, the Court finds that Defendants’ 

Motion and Joinder are meritorious. 

 For good cause shown, 

 IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant Ryan’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order 

(Doc. 42) and Defendant Orson Anderson, M.D.’s Joinder (Doc. 45). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED extending the discovery deadline to January 15, 

2016 and the dispositive motion deadline to February 1, 2016. 

 Dated this 24th day of November, 2015. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:13-cv-02357-DJH-ESW Document 47 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 2