Opinion
No. CV 05-4120-PHX-JAT (ECV).
May 17, 2006
ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Continue (Doc. #8). Plaintiff does not indicate the purpose for which he needs a continuance, but given the timing of his motion, the court is able to determine the basis for the request. On April 3, 2006, Judge Teilborg issued an Order (Doc. #7) directing Plaintiff to show cause why he failed to complete and return the service packet in the time set forth in the screening order (Doc. #4). A docket entry on April 6, 2006, indicates that the service packet was actually received on March 30, 2006, before the order to show cause was issued. Thus, it appears Plaintiff filed the request for a continuance to permit additional time for the court to receive the service packet and for the U.S. Marshal to effect service. Indeed, the docket reflects that on April 25, 2006, a waiver of service was filed for Defendant Arpaio and his answer is due on June 19, 2006. For these reasons, Plaintiff's motion will be granted. In addition, because Plaintiff's service packets were returned before the show cause order was issued, the court finds that Plaintiff need not show cause for failing to comply with the service packet deadline.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
That Plaintiff's Motion to Continue (Doc. #8) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:
That Plaintiff need not show cause for his failure to comply with the service packet deadline.