Opinion
20-3200-JAR-GEB
08-20-2024
DURAYL TYREE VANN, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY FEWELL, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JULIE A. ROBINSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
On July 8, 2024, Defendant Shardale Brown filed a Motion to Dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim based on a statute-of-limitations defense. On that same date, Brown incorrectly filed and served a Notice to Pro Se Litigant Who Opposes a Motion for Summary Judgment, as required by D. Kan. Rule 56.1(d). Plaintiff filed his pro se response to the motion to dismiss on August 8, 2024.
Doc. 160.
Doc. 162.
Doc. 166.
On July 9, 2024, all Defendants jointly filed a motion to extend the dispositive motions deadline, which presiding Magistrate Judge Birzer granted. Judge Birzer indicated in her Order that she would discuss the schedule and set remaining deadlines in this matter during a telephonic status conference set for August 23, 2024. Also, on August 12, 2024, Judge Birzer entered an Order as follows:
The Court received correspondence from Plaintiff dated 8/4/2024.
Per rules regarding communications with the Court, the correspondence has been forward to defense counsel. The Court notes Plaintiff filed a Response (ECF No. 166) to the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 160). The Notice regarding a summary judgment motion filed by Defendant Brown at ECF No. 162 was in relation to the Motion to Dismiss. There is no separate motion for summary judgment pending. Therefore, no response is due from Plaintiff regarding a motion for summary judgment, or any other motion at this time. Any other concerns Plaintiff has can be addressed at the upcoming status conference set for 8/23/2024 at 1:30 pm.
Doc. 167.
Now before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 169), seeking an extension of the dispositive motions deadline, and an extension of his deadline to oppose a summary judgment motion. In this motion, Plaintiff repeatedly refers to the mistakenly-filed Notice Brown filed along with the motion to dismiss.
As Judge Birzer has explained, she intends to discuss the dispositive motions deadline and all other scheduling matters at a status conference later this week. In the interim, in order to clear up the record, the Court strikes Doc. 162, which was incorrectly filed and served on Plaintiff. There is no summary judgment motion pending, so this notice should not have been filed. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time is therefore moot since he has already responded to Brown's pending motion to dismiss. All further scheduling matters should be directed to Judge Birzer at the August 23rd status conference.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that the Clerk is directed to strike Doc. 162, Defendant Brown's Notice to Pro Se Litigants Opposing Summary Judgment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 169) is moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.