Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00095/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00095-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jay Harold Wetmore, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

Charles Goldsmith, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-0095-PHX-PGR (JRI)

 

 ORDER

Having considered the plaintiff’s Appeal to the District Court Judge of the

Magistrate’s July 29 Order (doc. #18), the Court finds that the appeal should be

denied as premature.

On May 27, 2008, Magistrate Judge Irwin entered a scheduling order (doc.

#10). On July 18, 2008, the parties filed a Joint Discovery Plan (doc. #14) that

adopted the deadlines set forth in the scheduling order. On July 30, 2008,

Magistrate Judge Irwin entered an order (doc. #16) that stated that the scheduling

order entered on May 27th would remain in effect because the parties had

acceded to that schedule in their Joint Discovery Plan. On July 31, 2008, the

plaintiff filed a Motion to Modify and Extend Time Limits on Scheduling Order

(doc. #17), wherein he requests that the deadlines for submitting and completing

discovery be extended by two months. The defendants filed a response to the

Case 2:08-cv-00095-DGC Document 22 Filed 10/01/08 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

- 2 -

plaintiff’s motion on August 8, 2008 (doc. #19), wherein they request that a threemonth extension of the deadlines be entered.

In his appeal, the plaintiff requests that this Court vacate Magistrate Judge

Irwin’s order of July 29, 2008 [sic-July 30, 2008] and grant his motion to modify

the scheduling deadlines. The Court concludes that the appeal is premature

because it is based on the erroneous assumption that Magistrate Judge Irwin’s

July 30th order was a ruling on the plaintiff’s motion. It was not in fact such a

ruling inasmuch as the plaintiff’s motion was not filed until the day after the order

at issue was entered. Because there has to date not been a ruling by Magistrate

Judge Irwin on the plaintiff’s motion, given the pendency of the plaintiff’s appeal,

the Court declines to initially decide the propriety of the parties’ requests to

extend the scheduling deadlines. Under the Court’s referral order, that decision

must initially be made by Magistrate Judge Irwin. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Appeal to the District Court Judge of the

Magistrate’s July 29 Order (doc. #18) is denied.

DATED this 30th day of September, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00095-DGC Document 22 Filed 10/01/08 Page 2 of 2