Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02242/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02242-1/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

William Mark Isbell, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 04-2242 PHX JAT (VAM)

)

Justin Hughes, et al., ) O R D E R

)

 Defendants. )

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

(Doc. 39), Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 70) and

Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 70). Defendants have

filed a Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 83). Now pending

before the Magistrate Judge are several motions. 

On March 10, 2006, plaintiff filed a Motion to Modify the

scheduling order and extend the time to complete discovery. (Doc.

76). In this Motion, plaintiff states he has completed discovery

except he wishes to request from the El Mirage Police Department

and its staff a 2005 audit report of which he recently became

aware. The Motion gives no detail on the "audit report." It

makes no showing of relevance to this lawsuit. In fact, a 2005

audit report in and of itself does not appear to be relevant in

any way to this lawsuit. Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden

of showing there is a need to re-open discovery. The Motion will

be denied.

Case 2:04-cv-02242-JAT Document 92 Filed 04/26/06 Page 1 of 5
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

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962 (9th Cir. 1998).

2

On March 3, 2006. defendants filed a Motion requesting the

Court order plaintiff to return his deposition after he reads and

signs it or order plaintiff to pay the cost of the deposition. 

(Doc. 80). On March 13, 2006, plaintiff filed a Motion asking the

Court to strike defendants' Motion. (Doc. 81). Both of these

Motions will be denied as moot as plaintiff stated to the Court in

a filing that the deposition transcript has been returned. See

Doc. 89.

On March 30, 2006, plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike

defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the

alternative, grant him an extension of time to respond to the

Cross Motion. (Doc. 87). The Motion to Strike will be denied as

there is no basis for striking the Cross Motion for Summary

Judgment. However, the Court will grant plaintiff additional time

to respond to the Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff

shall file a response by May 19, 2006. 

NOTICE--WARNING TO PLAINTIFF

THIS NOTICE IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO YOU BY THE COURT1

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment seeks to have your

case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your

case.

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a

motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be

granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact--that is,

Case 2:04-cv-02242-JAT Document 92 Filed 04/26/06 Page 2 of 5
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

if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the

result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case. 

When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment

that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn

testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. 

Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated

documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts

shown in the defendants' declarations and documents and show that

there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do

not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if

appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is

granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.

LRCiv 56.1 of the Rules of Practice of the United States

District Court for the District of Arizona also requires, in

addition, that you include as a part of your opposition to a 

Motion for Summary Judgment a separate statement of facts in

opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. 

(a) Any party filing a motion for summary judgment

shall set forth separately from the memorandum of law,

and in full, the specific facts on which that party

relies in support of the motion. The specific facts

shall be set forth in serial fashion and not in

narrative form. As to each fact, the statement shall

refer to a specific portion of the record where the fact

may be found (i.e., affidavit, deposition, etc.). Any

party opposing a motion for summary judgment must comply

with the foregoing in setting forth the specific facts,

which the opposing party asserts, including those facts

which establish a genuine issue of material fact

precluding summary judgment in favor of the moving

party. In the alternative, the movant and the party

opposing the motion shall jointly file a stipulation

Case 2:04-cv-02242-JAT Document 92 Filed 04/26/06 Page 3 of 5
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

signed by the parties setting forth a statement of the

stipulated facts if the parties agree there is no

genuine issue of any material fact. As to any

stipulated facts, the parties so stipulating may state 

that their stipulations are entered into only for the

purposes of the motion for summary judgment and are not

intended to be otherwise binding.

Additional provisions of LRCiv 7.2, Rules of Practice of the

United States District Court for the District of Arizona are as

follows:

Subparagraph (e) of that Rule provides:

Unless otherwise permitted by the Court, a motion

including its supporting memorandum, and the response

including its supporting memorandum, each shall not

exceed seventeen (17) pages, exclusive of attachments

and any required statement of facts. Unless otherwise

permitted by the Court, a reply including its supporting

memorandum shall not exceed eleven (11) pages, exclusive

of attachments.

Subparagraph (i) of LRCiv 7.2 provides:

If a motion does not conform in all substantial respects

with the requirements of this Local Rule, or if the

opposing party does not serve and file the required

answering memoranda, or if counsel for any party fails

to appear at the time and place assigned for oral

argument, such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to

the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may

dispose of the motion summarily.

It is plaintiff's obligation to timely respond to all

motions. The failure of plaintiff to respond to defendants' Cross

Motion for Summary Judgment may in the discretion of the Court be

deemed a consent to the granting of that Motion without further

notice, and judgment may be entered dismissing the complaint and

action with prejudice pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i). See Brydges v.

Lewis, 18 F.3d 651 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying plaintiff's Motion to modify

the scheduling order and extend the time to complete discovery. 

Case 2:04-cv-02242-JAT Document 92 Filed 04/26/06 Page 4 of 5
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 5

(Doc. 76).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot defendants' Motion to

order plaintiff to pay the costs of his deposition transcript or

return the transcript. (Doc. 80).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot plaintiff's Motion to

Strike the Motion set forth in Document 80. (Doc. 81).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying plaintiff's Motion to Strike

defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 87) and

granting plaintiff's Motion for an extension of time to file a

response to the Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 87). 

Plaintiff shall file his response no later than May 19, 2006. 

There will be no further extensions.

DATED this 25th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02242-JAT Document 92 Filed 04/26/06 Page 5 of 5