Filed: Feb. 16, 2017
Latest Update: Feb. 16, 2017
Summary: ORDER SUSAN RICHARD NELSON , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Joel Marvin Munt's February 8, 2017 Letter to District Judge [Doc. No. 179] (received February 13, 2017) objecting to Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau's January 13, 2017 Order [Doc. No. 178] ("Extension Order"), which granted Munt an additional four weeks to respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 140]. Munt contends that the extension was "completely without meaning," because th
Summary: ORDER SUSAN RICHARD NELSON , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Joel Marvin Munt's February 8, 2017 Letter to District Judge [Doc. No. 179] (received February 13, 2017) objecting to Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau's January 13, 2017 Order [Doc. No. 178] ("Extension Order"), which granted Munt an additional four weeks to respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 140]. Munt contends that the extension was "completely without meaning," because the..
More
ORDER
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Joel Marvin Munt's February 8, 2017 Letter to District Judge [Doc. No. 179] (received February 13, 2017) objecting to Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau's January 13, 2017 Order [Doc. No. 178] ("Extension Order"), which granted Munt an additional four weeks to respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 140]. Munt contends that the extension was "completely without meaning," because the Extension Order did not reach him until January 20, 2017, and because prison rules mean that three weeks are required just to complete printing of the documents he intends to file as his response to the summary judgment motion. (See Letter to District Judge at 1.) The combined effect of these delays, Munt argues, is to effectively consume the entirety of the extension period, thus preventing him from actually profiting from the extension to conduct additional research, writing, etc. (Id.)
The Court recognizes that Munt's incarceration places special burdens on his ability to promptly reply to certain filings made in this matter. It also recognizes that Munt's objection raises reasonable concerns about the practical value of the Extension Order in light of those special burdens. Motivated—as Judge Rau was—by interests of justice, the Court will thus modify the terms of the Extension Order so as to allow Munt to file his amended response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment no later than April 6, 2017. This extension grants Munt an additional seven weeks in which to prepare and file his response, which—even accounting for the unavoidable delays identified by Munt in his Letter—should be ample.1
In all other respects, the Extension Order is left undisturbed. Accordingly, the "Objections to Defendants' Reply" contained in Munt's Letter are improperly filed and will not be considered by the Court at this time. To the extent Munt wishes to present the arguments encompassed by these "objections" to the Court, he must do so in the first instance in his Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Magistrate Judge's January 13, 2017 Order [Doc. No. 178] is MODIFIED so as to allow Plaintiff to file his amended response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment no later than April 6, 2017;
2. In all other respects, the January 13, 2017 Order is AFFIRMED; and
3. Plaintiff's "Objections to Defendants' Reply" contained in his February 8, 2017 Letter to District Judge [Doc. No. 179] are improperly filed and will NOT be considered.
