Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02155-RBJ-KLM
12-10-2012
MINH PHAM, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL AHRENS, Officer, in his official and individual capacity, and GLENN MAHR, Officer, his official and individual capacity Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Docket No. 16; Filed December 4, 2012] (the "Motion"). In response, Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, filed a Motion to Strike the 21-Day Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [#18; Filed December 6, 2012] (the "Motion to Strike").
Defendants seek a 21-day extension to respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [#6] to further investigate and research the facts and allegations contained therein. [#16] at 2. Defendants explain that no prior extensions of time to answer have been sought and they contend that no party will be prejudiced by the requested extension. Id.
Plaintiff argues in the Motion to Strike that Rule 12 provides sufficient time for Defendants to respond to the Amended Complaint. [#18] at 2. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that Defendants have known the facts surrounding this case for some time given the letters he sent to settle his claims long before he filed a lawsuit. Id. Plaintiff contends that an extension will result in additional stress on him based on his medical bills and injuries. Id. at 3.
The Court finds that the Motion satisfies the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1(C-E) and that Defendants have show good cause for an extension. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#16] is GRANTED. The deadline for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [#6] is extended to no later than December 31, 2012.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike [#18] is DENIED.