Opinion
Civil Action 21-cv-01837-PAB-MEH
07-13-2022
STEPHEN SUSINKA, Plaintiff, v. A. TRUJILLO, J. WILCOX, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's “Motion for Extension.” ECF 48. Plaintiff requests a sixty-day extension of time to respond to the pending motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. Id. at 3. He indicates that his facility is on “a strict modified 22 hour-a-day lockdown” which follows a previous five-week “total lockdown.” Id. at 2. As a result, Plaintiff has “zero law library access.” Id. at 3. Consequently, he cannot “research and draft the appropriate documentation in [response] to Defendants' dispositive motions.” Id. Finally, Plaintiff asserts that the current lockdown prevents him from printing and/or copying any legal documents. Id.
Based on the representations made in his motion, Plaintiff makes clear he currently lacks the ability to respond substantively to matters this case. In similar situations, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, this Court has ordered (or recommended) administrative closure until such time as the pro se litigant regains his ability to fully participate in the litigation through adequate law library access and access to other, necessary materials. E.g., 20-cv-01607-DDD-MEH, ECF 34 (recommending administrative closure for similar reasons); 19-cv-03706-DDD-MEH, ECF 61 (same). It is a drain on both judicial and party resources for Plaintiff to potentially need to seek additional time to litigate his case when the cause of such delay stems from Plaintiff's and the facility's available resources. For these reasons, instead of granting an extension, the Court finds an administrative closure to be a more prudent way to proceed.
Until that time that Plaintiff demonstrates by clear notice to the Court that he is ready and able to fully participate in this litigation, the Court respectfully recommends denying Plaintiff's motion [filed July 12, 2022; ECF 48] and administratively closing this case pursuant to D.C.Colo.LCivR 41.2. See also Quinn v. CGR, 828 F.2d 1463, 1465 n.2 (10th Cir. 1987) (construing an administrative closure to be the practical equivalent of a stay). In light of this recommendation for administrative closure, the Court also respectfully recommends that Defendants' motion to dismiss [filed June 27, 2022; ECF 44] and motion for partial summary judgment [filed June 27, 2022; ECF 45] be denied as moot. D.C.Colo.LCivR 41.2 (“Administrative closure of a civil action terminates any pending motion.”).
If Chief Judge Brimmer disagrees with the recommendation for administrative closure, the Court would respectfully recommend granting Plaintiff his requested sixty-day extension to respond to the dispositive motions.
Be advised that all parties shall have fourteen (14) days after service hereof to serve and file any written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this case is assigned. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. The party filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections to proposed findings and recommendations contained in this report may bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676-83 (1980); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Additionally, the failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy may bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted or adopted by the District Court. Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234, 1237 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991)).
To reopen the case, Plaintiff would need only to file a motion to reopen, explaining that he has the resources and means to fully litigate this case. At that time, and after the case is reopened, Defendants may immediately refile their dispositive motions.