Wolf et al v. Otter et al, No. 1:2012cv00526 - Document 200 (D. Idaho 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER Plaintiffs' Motion for an Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendant Kempfs Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 192 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: The motion is DENIED to the extent plainti ffs seek an order allowing them to file a substantive response to the summary-judgment motion after this Court has ruled on plaintiffs' various pending motions in this case. The motion is GRANTED to the extent the Court will allow plaintiffs un til 3/1/17 to file a substantive response to defendant's pending summary-judgment motion. Defendant's optional reply brief is due by 12:00 p.m. on 3/8/17.. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)
Download PDF
Wolf et al v. Otter et al Doc. 200 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ANDREW J.J. WOLF, R. HANS KRUGER, and DAVID S. BEGLEY, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 1:12-cv-00526-BLW MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER; LAWRENCE WASDEN; IDAHO STATE BOARD OF CORRECTIONS; ROBIN SANDY, J.R. VAN TASSEL; JAY NEILSON; IDAHO COMMISSION OF PARDONS AND PAROLE; OLIVIA CRAVEN; BILL YOUNG; MARK FUNAIOLE; JANE DRESSEN; NORMAN LANGERAK; MIKE MATTHEWS; BRENT REINKE; CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC.; TIM WENGLER; CORRISON INC., each sued in their individual and official capacities and their successors in office, Defendants. Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendant Kempf’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 192). Defendant filed his second motion for summary judgment on July 29, 2016. See Dkt. 178. In the ensuing months, plaintiffs have not filed a substantive response to the motion. Instead, in August 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion asking for an extension of time in which to respond. See Dkt. 192. But plaintiffs did not ask for a date certain; instead, they asked the Court to allow them to file their response 45 days after this Court has ruled on various motions MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com plaintiffs had filed, including two motions to reconsider and a related motion for leave to conduct further discovery. See Dkt. 192, at 3. The Court will resolve these motions in a forthcoming order. In the meantime, however, if plaintiffs wish to file a substantive response to the summary-judgment motion, they shall do so by March 1, 2017. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendant Kempf’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 192) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 2. The motion is DENIED to the extent plaintiffs seek an order allowing them to file a substantive response to the summary-judgment motion after this Court has ruled on plaintiffs’ various pending motions in this case. 3. The motion is GRANTED to the extent the Court will allow plaintiffs until March 1, 2017 to file a substantive response to defendant’s pending summaryjudgment motion. 4. Defendant’s optional reply brief is due by 12:00 p.m. on March 8, 2017. DATED: February 14, 2017 _________________________ B. Lynn Winmill Chief Judge United States District Court MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2