Opinion
2:12-cv-00129-JCM-VCF
11-28-2012
KEVIN ALMY, Plaintiff, v. D. DAVIS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Presently before the court is plaintiff, appearing pro se, Kevin Almy's motion for order to permit reply to defendants' opposition (doc. # 59) and plaintiff's motion to extend time to respond (doc. # 60). Defendants have not responded.
I. Motion for order to permit reply to defendants' opposition (doc. # 59)
First, plaintiff requests an opportunity to file a reply to defendant's opposition to plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. # 59). The motion for preliminary injunction was filed September 19, 2012. (Doc. # 21). Defendants responded on October 3, 2012. (Doc. # 23). Replies were due by October 13, 2012. Provided plaintiff's current incarceration, the court permitted an additional month for plaintiff to file a reply. The court issued its order denying the preliminary injunction on November 14, 2012. (Doc. # 51).
On November 21, 2012, plaintiff filed his reply. (Doc. # 57). Reply briefs are optional and not mandatory, but if one is to be filed, it must be filed by the deadlines set forth. However, in good faith, the court has reviewed plaintiff's untimely reply.
Plaintiff represents that he did not receive defendants' opposition until November 7, 2012. (Doc. # 57, 2:4-7). The court is aware of the sluggish pace at which correspondence is received and sent through the prison mail system. And the court has afforded a generous amount of time to accommodate these circumstances (as demonstrated by this court sua sponte providing plaintiff with an additional month to respond to defendant's partial motion to dismiss).
After having reviewed the reply and considered the contents therein, the court's order denying the preliminary injunction (doc. # 51) stands.
II. Motion to extend time to respond (doc. # 60)
Second, plaintiff requests an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants' partial motion to dismiss (doc. # 27). Defendant represents that he has not been served a copy of the motion. Although the court has already sua sponte granted a one-month extension of time for defendant to respond, the court finds that additional time is warranted.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff's motion for order to permit reply to defendants' opposition (doc. # 59) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
The reply was filed as doc. # 57. The court has considered the reply and finds that its current order on the preliminary injunction (doc. # 51) stands.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to extend time to respond (doc. # 60) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants serve another copy of the partial motion to dismiss (doc. # 27) on plaintiff on or before December 3, 2012. To comply, defendants need only mail the motion to plaintiff by this date. ... ... ...
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have up to, and including, January 31, 2013, to file an opposition. The opposition will be considered filed on the date of mailing.
The court bases this deadline upon prior history in this case.
--------
_____________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE