Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02657/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02657-3/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

1

The Motion to Dismiss was filed by the following Defendants: the State of Arizona, Ramos,

Romweber, Mummert, Berger, Holmes, and Bevins (Doc. #24). The remaining Defendants—Misty

Taylor, Lynch, and Rivers—have not been served (Doc. #24 n. 1)

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Raymond Ambrose, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2657-PHX-SMM (DKD) 

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension (Doc. #33), which seeks

additional time to respond to Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #24).1

 The

Motion to Dismiss was filed on June 11, 2007, and Plaintiff was ordered to file his response

within 30 days of that date. Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension was filed September

26, 2007, over two months after the response deadline.

In his motion, Plaintiff argues that a series of security issues in the Santa Rita Unit,

where he is presently housed, have prevented access to law library resources (Doc. #33 at 1).

Specifically, a large number of out-of-state prisoners have been shipped to Arizona facilities

through the Santa Rita Unit, thereby disrupting normal prison operations and requiring

security lock-downs 3-4 days a week (id. at 2). Because these disruptions have impaired

Plaintiff’s ability to complete briefs and obtain copies, he requests and extension of 30 days

Case 2:06-cv-02657-SMM-DKD Document 41 Filed 10/10/07 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

27

28

- 2 -

to file his response memorandum (id.). Although the Court understands the difficulty of

Plaintiff’s position, Plaintiff should have filed this motion within the time limit established

by the Court’s order of June 11, 2007. Therefore Plaintiff’s motion is denied as untimely,

and Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Doc. #24)

is granted pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(i). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension (Doc. #33).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #24),

and dismissing this matter without prejudice.

DATED this 9th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02657-SMM-DKD Document 41 Filed 10/10/07 Page 2 of 2