Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01340/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01340-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jonathan C. Bertanelli, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CV 11-1340-PHX-PGR (BSB)

)

v. ) ORDER

)

Charles L. Ryan, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

___________________________ )

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s “Emergency Objection to Magistrate Denial of

Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending Petition for Certiorari Review and

Motion for Order Not to Respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. 79; see Doc. 84);

“Motion for Stay Not to Respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pending Court’s Ruling

on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint” (Doc. 86); and “Third Motion for Stay of the

District Court’s Proceedings on Plaintiff’s Original Complaint Pending Plaintiff’s Petition

for Certiorari Review” (Doc. 87). These motions will be denied. 

On September 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging civil rights violations under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) On March 12, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc.

32.) On April 13, 2012, Magistrate Judge Anderson ordered Plaintiff to respond the motion

to dismiss no later than May 7, 2012. (Doc. 42.) This deadline was subsequently extended

to June 16, then to July 9, and finally to August 15, at which point Plaintiff was informed that

no further extension would be granted. (Doc. 81.) 

Case 2:11-cv-01340-PGR Document 92 Filed 09/06/12 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

- 2 -

On June 25, 2012, Magistrate Judge Anderson denied as moot Plaintiff’s “Motion in

Opposition to the Court’s Anticipated Pre-Screening Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s Policy

Claim” and found no basis for staying this action while Plaintiff petitions the United States

Supreme Court for review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals order denying his

interlocutory appeal. (Doc. 72.) Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of that order. (Docs. 79, 84.)

Because he has not shown that Magistrate Judge Anderson’s decision is clearly erroneous

or contrary to law, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), Plaintiff’s motions are denied. 

Plaintiff has again moved to stay the proceedings. (Doc. 86, 87.) These motions are

also denied. As noted, Plaintiff has been granted several extensions of the deadline for

responding to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff again fails support his requests for

further delay.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s “Emergency Objection to Magistrate Denial

of Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending Petition for Certiorari Review

and Motion for Order Not to Respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss” (Docs. 79, 84). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motions to Stay (Docs. 86, 87).

DATED this 6th day of September, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01340-PGR Document 92 Filed 09/06/12 Page 2 of 2