Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00623/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00623-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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 1 Notice required pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 1998).

WO JWB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Leonard Deon Irvin, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, et

al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0623-PHX-RCB

ORDER

Before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff seeking extensions of time to

respond to Defendants’ summary judgment motions (Doc. ## 42, 47). Plaintiff has also filed

a second Motion to Compel, alleging that his former counsel has failed to provide Plaintiff

with his complete file, preventing Plaintiff from responding to Defendants’ summary

judgment motions. The Court will grant Plaintiff one final extension of time and order

Plaintiff’s former counsel Jess Lorona to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. 

I. Procedural Background

Lloyd P. Champagne, M.D., filed a summary judgment motion on November 26, 2007

(Doc. # 20), to which the Maricopa County Defendants joined (Doc. # 36). Plaintiff was

informed of his rights and obligations to respond to Defendants’ motion;1

 his Response is

presently due on April 26, 2008. The Maricopa County Defendants have also filed a separate

Case 2:07-cv-00623-RCB Document 52 Filed 04/29/08 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

- 2 -

Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force (Doc. # 39);

Plaintiff’s Response is also due on April 26, 2008 (Doc. # 44). 

II. Plaintiff’s Motions

Plaintiff now moves for an additional 60 days to respond to each of Defendants’

motions. Plaintiff alleges that his former counsel, Jess Lorona, has failed to comply with the

Court’s February 26, 2008 Order requiring Mr. Lorona to transmit a copy of Plaintiff’s entire

file to Plaintiff. In Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, he alleges that Mr. Lorona has failed to

transmit significant photographic and video evidence, without which Plaintiff cannot

adequately respond to Defendants’ motions. The Court will order Mr. Lorona to respond to

Plaintiff’s motion. In an abundance of caution, the Court will grant Plaintiff one final

extension of time to respond to Defendants’ motions. The Court will not, however, delay

these proceedings for another 60 days. Plaintiff will be given an additional 30 days to

respond. 

In accordance with the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motions for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants’ Summary

Judgment Motions (Doc. ## 42, 47) are GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiff must respond to Champagne’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #

20), the Maricopa County Defendants’ Joinder thereto (Doc. # 36), and the Maricopa County

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Claim of Excessive Force (Doc.

# 39) no later than May 26, 2008.

3. Defendants may file a reply within 15 days after service of Plaintiff’s response(s).

4. Jess Lorona must respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel no later than May 5,

2008.

5. The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit a copy of this Order to Mr. Jess Lorona

electronically to jlorona@azlawyers.com and by mail to Jess A. Lorona; Dodge, Anderson,

. . .

Case 2:07-cv-00623-RCB Document 52 Filed 04/29/08 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 -

Mableson, Steiner, Jones & Horowitz, Ltd.; 3003 North Central Avenue; Suite 1800;

Phoenix, Arizona 85012. 

Dated this 29th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00623-RCB Document 52 Filed 04/29/08 Page 3 of 3