Jackson v. Mike-Lopez, 17-4278 (JRT/BRT). (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20180803996
Visitors: 12
Filed: Aug. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 02, 2018
Summary: ORDER BECKY R. THORSON , Magistrate Judge . The Court is in receipt of a letter dated July 25, 2018, from Plaintiff Ronnie Jackson, on behalf of all Plaintiffs, requesting an extension of time to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss from July 16 to July 30. (Doc. No. 70.) On July 24, the Court had already granted an extension of time for Plaintiff to respond until August 24. (Doc. No. 69.) Therefore, it appears that the concerns expressed in Plaintiffs' July 25 letter have already been
Summary: ORDER BECKY R. THORSON , Magistrate Judge . The Court is in receipt of a letter dated July 25, 2018, from Plaintiff Ronnie Jackson, on behalf of all Plaintiffs, requesting an extension of time to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss from July 16 to July 30. (Doc. No. 70.) On July 24, the Court had already granted an extension of time for Plaintiff to respond until August 24. (Doc. No. 69.) Therefore, it appears that the concerns expressed in Plaintiffs' July 25 letter have already been a..
More
ORDER
BECKY R. THORSON, Magistrate Judge.
The Court is in receipt of a letter dated July 25, 2018, from Plaintiff Ronnie Jackson, on behalf of all Plaintiffs, requesting an extension of time to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss from July 16 to July 30. (Doc. No. 70.) On July 24, the Court had already granted an extension of time for Plaintiff to respond until August 24. (Doc. No. 69.) Therefore, it appears that the concerns expressed in Plaintiffs' July 25 letter have already been alleviated by the Court's July 24 Order.
Plaintiff Jackson also explains that he is having difficulty retrieving his legal property, partly due to a recent lockdown in his prison facility, MCF-Stillwater, because of the murder of a prison guard. Plaintiffs therefore request a stay of proceedings until he is given his legal property or counsel be appointed to represent Plaintiffs in this matter. Plaintiffs offer no reason to think they will be unable to respond to the Motion to Dismiss by August 24. Plaintiffs' alternative request for counsel is denied for the reasons stated in the Court's July 24 Order. (Doc. No. 69.)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs' request for an extension (Doc. No. 70) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
