Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01963/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01963-0/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 JWB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Mitchell, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1963-PHX-MHM 

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant’s Response to the Court’s October 31, 2007 Order to

Show Cause (Doc. # 38) and Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. # 39). The Court finds that

Defendant’s Response does not constitute good cause for extending the dispositive motion

deadline and will, therefore, summarily deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 35) as

untimely. 

I. Background

Plaintiff filed this action in August 2006 alleging violations of his constitutional rights

while incarcerated at the Towers Jail in Phoenix, Arizona (Doc. # 1). Defendant Arpaio was

directed to answer (Doc. # 3). On November 21, 2006, the Court entered a Scheduling Order

in this case, setting all pretrial deadlines (Doc. # 7). That Order required that all dispositive

motions be filed no later than May 23, 2007 (id.). On May 24, 2007, Plaintiff filed a notice

with the Court indicating that he was being transferred to the Arizona Department of

Case 2:06-cv-01963-MHM Document 44 Filed 12/14/07 Page 1 of 4
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

 While the Court may consider Plaintiff’s notice as of the date it was given to prison

officials for mailing, Huston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76 (1988), that does not change the fact

- 2 -

Corrections and that he would update the Court with his new address when he reached his

final destination (Doc. # 19). The dispositive motion deadline passed without either party

electing to file a dispositive motion and without a request to extend the deadline.

Consequently, on May 30, 2007, the Court withdrew the reference of the case to Magistrate

Judge Burns and, the next day, set the final pretrial deadlines (Doc. # 21). At no time after

the dispositive motion deadline passed did the Court indicate an intent to extend or reset the

dispositive motion deadline. Indeed, the only deadlines the Court set were related to trial.

On June 29, 2007, Arpaio moved to substitute his counsel (Doc. # 24). That motion

was granted and the Court eventually reassigned this case to the undersigned while still

affirming the existing July 13, 2007 deadline for filing the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order

(Doc. # 26). On July 11, 2007, both parties separately moved for an extension of time to file

the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order (Doc. ## 30, 31). The Court granted the parties’ request

(Doc. # 33). The Court reset the remaining pretrial deadlines on October 12, 2007 and, on

the same day, Arpaio moved to dismiss for lack of exhaustion (Doc. # 35). The Court then

issued an Order to Show Cause as to why the motion should not be summarily dismissed as

untimely (Doc. # 37). Arpaio responded and Plaintiff filed a response in opposition (Doc.

## 38, 39). 

II. Defendant’s Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause

Counsel first avers that Plaintiff’s “May 17, 2007 notice” indicating that he was being

transferred to the Arizona Department of Corrections and requesting that no correspondence

be sent to him during his transfer precluded Arpaio from filing a dispositive motion before

the deadline expired (Doc. # 38 at 1). But Counsel’s recitation of the docket is disingenuous

at best. First, Plaintiff did not file his notice on May 17, 2007. It was signed on May 18,

2007, but the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office of Inmate Legal Services attached a

certification to the notice indicating that a copy of the notice was not mailed to Arpaio’s

counsel until May 23, 2007, the day of the dispositive motion deadline.1

 Consequently, it

Case 2:06-cv-01963-MHM Document 44 Filed 12/14/07 Page 2 of 4
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

that Arpaio could not have known about the notice until after the dispositive motion deadline had

passed, vitiating his argument that it was because of Plaintiff’s notice that Arpaio did not file a

dispositive motion.

2

 Arpaio seems to indicate in his Response that he requested that the dispositive motion

deadline be reset in his July 11, 2007 motion (Doc. # 30). But Arpaio’s motion solely mentions the

Joint Proposed Pretrial Order and the Final Pretrial Conference; nowhere is the dispositive motion

deadline mentioned (id.). 

- 3 -

would have been impossible for Arpaio’s then counsel to know before the expiration of the

dispositive motion deadline that Plaintiff was being transferred and requested that no

correspondence be sent to him. The Court will not extend a deadline based on an event of

which Arpaio had no knowledge; Plaintiff’s “disappearance” after May 24, 2007 did not

prevent Arpaio from filing a dispositive motion before the May 23, 2007 deadline. And

counsel’s attempt to misstate the record certainly does not constitute good cause to extend

the dispositive motion deadline in this matter. 

Counsel’s other averments regarding an expectation that the dispositive motion

deadline would be reset by the Court are equally unavailing. As noted above, after the May

23, 2007 dispositive motion deadline had passed, all subsequent orders related solely to

setting final pretrial deadlines and made no mention of resetting the dispositive motion

deadline. And Arpaio has never requested an extension of the dispositive motion deadline.2

Further, Arpaio’s statement that he did not have Plaintiff’s new address until August

2, 2007 is also belied by the record. Plaintiff’s motion to extend the deadline to file the Joint

Proposed Pretrial Order on July 11, 2007 contained his new address. And finally, even if

Arpaio was correct in asserting that Plaintiff did not update his address until August 2007,

Arpaio makes no effort to explain why he waited over two months to attempt to file a

dispositive motion. 

 For these reasons, the Court finds that Arpaio has not established good cause to

consider the untimely motion to dismiss. It will, therefore, be summarily denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 35)

is denied as untimely. 

Case 2:06-cv-01963-MHM Document 44 Filed 12/14/07 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in view of Arpaio’s Notice of Conflict (Doc. #

36) the Court will reset the remaining pretrial deadlines. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED confirming the final pretrial conference on January

22, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. and trial date of February 20, 2008.

DATED this 13th day of December, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01963-MHM Document 44 Filed 12/14/07 Page 4 of 4