Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00312-BNB
06-20-2012
MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE BOYD N. BOLAND
This matter is before the Court on the motion titled "Petitioners [sic] Motion to Stay for Thirty Days or Send a Copy of the U.S. Attorneys Response to the Preliminary Order Regarding Exhaustion Due to Continued Interference With His Access to His Legal Assistant and Co-Plaintiff in their Civil Action for Advice" (ECF No. 26) that Applicant, Patrick J. Roselli, filed on June 18, 2012. In the motion, Mr. Roselli asks for a copy of the "U.S. Attorneys [sic] Response to the Preliminary Response Ordered by this Court."
The Court initially notes that there is no "U.S. Attorneys [sic] Response to the Preliminary Response Ordered by this Court." There is, however, a preliminary response (ECF No. 17) filed on April 24, 2012, by Respondents in response to the Court's April 3, 2012, order (ECF No. 10) for such a response. The Court further notes that Mr. Roselli already has a copy of the April 24 response because there is no indication in the Court's docketing records that the copy of the response mailed to Mr. Roselli was returned as undeliverable.
The other individuals Mr. Roselli mentions in the June 18 motion are not parties to this action and, therefore, the Court will not mail them copies of any documents in this case.
To the extent Mr. Roselli seeks a thirty-day extension of time in which to file a reply to the preliminary response, the request is GRANTED, despite the fact that in the May 31, 2012, minute order (ECF No. 22) he was informed that no further extensions would be granted.