Opinion
2:24-cv-11831
11-19-2024
JOSHUA LEVI ALGER, SR., and THERESA WILSON, Plaintiffs, v. S. CAMPBELL, McROBERTS, JOHNSON, BROCKWAY, B. PORTER, ROARK, WARREN, GEORGE STEPHENSON, GREASON, MONA GOLSON, M. STODDARD, and CHERYL ELLIOT, Defendants.
Robert J. White District Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME OR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS (ECF No. 26)
KIMBERLY G. ALTMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Introduction
This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs Joshua Levi Alger, Sr. (Alger) and Theresa Wilson (Wilson), proceeding pro se, are suing multiple defendants asserting Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. See ECF No. 1. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), all pretrial proceedings have been referred to the undersigned. (ECF No. 23). Defendants have collectively filed a motion to dismiss, which is currently pending. (ECF No. 22).
Defendants' names will all be spelled as they appear in their dispositive motions.
Before the Court is plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time to respond to the motion or for a stay of proceedings. (ECF No. 26). For the reasons discussed below, this motion will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs will be given until December 16, 2024, to respond to the pending dispositive motion. No stay of proceedings is warranted at this time.
In the title of his motion, Alger asks for an extension of time or a stay of proceedings “in the alternative.” (ECF No. 26, PageID.364). To keep the case moving forward, the undersigned deems it more appropriate to grant an extension of time for Alger to respond.
II. Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond
Plaintiffs were directed to file a response to defendants' motion to dismiss by November 7, 2024. (ECF No. 24). The motion currently before the Court, dated November 6, 2024, but docketed on November 18, will be deemed timely, and thus plaintiffs need only show good cause for the requested extension of time. (ECF No. 26, PageID.365). Alger says that he has been denied access to a legal writer, has been placed in segregation, and has not been able to confer with his coplaintiff, Wilson, regarding a response to defendants' motion. (Id., PageID.362-364). Therefore, plaintiffs shall have until December 16, 2024, to respond to defendants' motion to dismiss.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiffs shall have until December 16, 2024, to respond to defendants' motion. Plaintiffs are cautioned that a failure to file a response by that date may result in a recommendation that the motions be granted. No further extensions will be permitted.
SO ORDERED.