Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01159/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01159-7/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

BARRY NORTHCROSS PATTERSON, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 05-1159-PHX-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

CHARLES L. RYAN, et al., )

)

Defendants. ) )

Currently pending before the court is a “Motion for

Clarification and if Needed Notice of Appeal” filed by plaintiff

pro se Barry Northcross Patterson (Doc. 128). Plaintiff Patterson

is seeking clarification as to how this lawsuit should proceed

after Patterson v. Ryan, 2011 WL 399099 (D.Ariz. Aug. 26, 2011)

(“Patterson I”). In Patterson I, this court granted the motion for

partial dismissal by the remaining defendants, Broderick and Mason. 

One claim now remains. That claim is in Count I of the Second

Amended Complaint wherein plaintiff alleges that those two 

defendants violated his free exercise rights under the First

Amendment. 

Case 2:05-cv-01159-RCB Document 130 Filed 10/26/11 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

1 LRCiv 7.2(c) reads as follows:

 The opposing party shall, unless otherwise ordered by 

the Court and except as otherwise provided by Rule 56 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 12.1, 

54.2(b), and 56.1, Local Rules of Civil Procedure, have 

fourteen (14) days after service in a civil or criminal 

case within which to serve and file a responsive memorandum.

2 LRCiv 7.2(d) states:

 The moving party, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, 

shall have seven (7) days after service of the responsive 

memorandum to file a reply memorandum if that party so desires.

- 2 -

Defendants respond by “request[ing] that the Court . . .

enter[] a revised scheduling order setting a new dispositive motion

deadline in no less than 60 days.” Resp. (Doc. 129) at 2:17-19. 

Because a revised schedule is warranted, the court hereby ORDERS

that:

(1) plaintiff’s “Motion for Clarification and if Needed Notice

of Appeal” (Doc. 128) is GRANTED to the extent he is seeking

clarification, but DENIED as moot insofar as he is seeking leave to

file a Notice of Appeal;

(2) any party may file a dispositive motion directed to the

one remaining claim sixty (60) days from the date of entry of this

order; and

(3) any responses or replies thereto shall be filed and served

in conformity with all applicable rules and law, including LRCiv

7.2(c)1 and (d)2; and to the extent any party moves for summary

. . . 

Case 2:05-cv-01159-RCB Document 130 Filed 10/26/11 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 -

judgment, they must also comply with all pertinent rules, including

LRCiv 56.1. 

DATED this 25th day of October, 2011.

Copies to plaintiff pro se and counsel of record 

Case 2:05-cv-01159-RCB Document 130 Filed 10/26/11 Page 3 of 3