Ardis v. Dickey

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION

Robert Michael Ardis, ) Civil Action No.: 3:20-cv-01335-JMC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Darlene Dickey, William Eddins, Sarah ) ORDER Harper-Crutchfield, Gregory Marcille, ) Timothy Register, Thomas Williams, ) Jane Does 1-10, and John Does 1-10, ) ) Defendants. ) )

Plaintiff Robert Michael Ardis, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action against Defendants Darlene Dickey, William Eddins, Sarah Harper-Crutchfield, Gregory Marcille, Timothy Register, Thomas Williams, Jane Does 1-10, and John Does 1-10 (collectively “Defendants”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See ECF No. 1.) This matter is before the court to address Plaintiff’s Motion to Hold Case in Abeyance and Motion for Extension of Time. (ECF No. 49.) Specifically, Plaintiff seeks a stay of the case and an extension of time to allow him to “determine my next course of action.” (Id. at 3 ¶¶ 5, 7.) Upon its review, the court observes that on January 25, 2021, it entered an Order dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice because his claims were foreclosed by the abstention doctrine outlined in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). (See ECF No. 45.) The court further entered Judgment for Defendants on January 28, 2021, and officially closed the case thereafter. (See ECF No. 47.) Therefore, in its current posture, there is not anything pending to hold in abeyance or to necessitate an extension of time. Therefore, the court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion to Hold Case in Abeyance and Motion for Extension of Time. (ECF No. 49.) IT IS SO ORDERED. ft

United States District Judge May 20, 2021 Columbia, South Carolina