United States District Court, D. Arizona
Honorable David C. Bury, United States District Judge.
25, 2019, this Court granted summary judgment for the
Defendants on the merits of the Plaintiff's religious
freedom claim. The Court held that Plaintiff sincerely held
the religious belief that “‘his Jewish faith and
beliefs require him to follow Kashrut (Jewish dietary
laws),' which includes adherence to a Kosher diet.”
(Order (Doc. 112) at 12 (quoting Complaint (Doc. 1) at 8).
The Court, however, held that the sixth month termination of
his Kosher diet did not substantially burden that religious
belief because he admitted that “‘his religion
does not forbid him to eat non-Kosher food when offered
nothing else.'” Id. at 13 (quoting
Response to MSJ (Doc. 76) at 6.) The Court gave the Plaintiff
ten days to show cause why unnamed Defendants should not be
dismissed from the case for lack of service and failure to
prosecute. (Order (Doc. 112) at 2.)
August 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of
Time to Show Cause. (Doc. 113.) On August 13, 2019, he filed
a Motion for Clarification (Doc. 114) and a Response to
Defendants' Notice of Compliance (Doc. 115). He also
seeks to file an affidavit of declaration as a Sur-Reply,
which the Court reviews ex parte.
Motion for Extension of Time seeks more time to respond to
the order to show cause and to seek reconsideration of the
Court's entry of summary judgment for Defendants.
Plaintiff needs more time to respond to the OSC because he
has not been able access to his legal files, and he is very
busy working on four civil rights cases. As the Court noted
when it gave Plaintiff leave to show cause why it should not
dismiss unnamed and unserved Defendants, the Defendants were
dismissed initially in the Court's screening Order and
reinstated after Plaintiff assured the Court that he would
endeavor through discovery to identify them, which he did not
do. Plaintiff was advised in the screening Order that they
were subject to dismissal unless identified and served. He
has, therefore, been given notice and an opportunity for
discovery. These Defendants are subject to dismissal unless
Plaintiff can show a good reason for not discovering their
identities when afforded the opportunity to do so. The Court
cannot imagine any document contained in any record that he
would need for the purpose of showing good cause for this
failure, but in the event such a document exists, the Court
shall allow the Plaintiff respond the show cause order by
referencing the supporting document, without attaching it.
Court will allow the same extension of time for the Plaintiff
to file a Motion for Reconsideration.
asks the Court to send back original documents, which he
previously sought and was denied. On May 31, 2019, Plaintiff
made several filings and attached original documents as
exhibits because he alleged the prison librarian was refusing
to make legible copies of documents for him. The Court denied
the request to return the documents because it had not yet
reviewed the pending dispositive motion and didn't know
if it might need the original copies, if they were the most
legible documents. Instead, the Court ordered Defendants to
secure legible copies of all the documents, including
exhibits, filed on May 31, 2019, and give them to the
Plaintiff. (Order (Doc. 100)).
still wants the originals. The Court has now ruled on the
dispositive motion and in doing so was able to review the
relevant record based on the electronic record. There is no
need in the context of this case to retain the original
documents which were submitted to the Court on May 31, 2019.
The Clerk of the Court may return all original documents
attached to Sur-Response (Doc. 94) and Sealed Lodged Exhibit
A (Doc. 98).
files a “Notice of Submission of Declaration in Support
of Plaintiff s Sur-Reply/Motion to Seal, ” which the
Court reviews ex parte. It pertains to allegations regarding
problems with legal mail, which have nothing to do with this
case. In the event, it pertains to another of his four civil
rights cases-he needs to refile it in the relevant case.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion of Extension of
Time (Doc. 113) is GRANTED for 14 days from the filing date
of this Order for Plaintiff to show cause why the unnamed
Defendants should not be dismissed from this case for failure
to serve and/or prosecute and for Plaintiff to file a Motion
IS FURTHER ORDERED that NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF
TIME SHALL BE GRANTED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Clarification
(Doc. 114) is GRANTED; the Clerk of the Court shall send
Plaintiff all original documents attached to the Sur-Response
(Doc. 94) and Sealed Lodged Exhibit A (Doc. 98).
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the document, Notice of
Submission of Declaration in Support of Plaintiff s
Sur-Reply/Motion to Seal, reviewed exparte, SHALL BE FILED
UNDER SEAL, with Defense Counsel directed to not disclose it
or any information contained therein to the ...