Griffin v. White

D. New Mexico

Griffin v. White

DecidedJune 1, 2022

Docket2:22-cv-00362

StatusUnknown

This text of Griffin v. White (Griffin v. White) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Mexico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Griffin v. White, (D.N.M. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO COUY GRIFFIN, Plaintiff, V. Case No. 22-cv-362 KG/GJF MARCO WHITE, MARK MITCHELL, and LESLIE LAKIND, acting under color of New Mexico law, Defendants. ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Emergency Motion for leave to File Supplemental Brief and Modify Briefing Schedule. (Doc. 24). Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion. (Doc. 25). Having reviewed the briefing, the Court grants the Motion. The Court concludes that additional briefing, especially on the issue of abstention, will be helpful for adjudication of this action. The Court also concludes that consolidating Plaintiff's Reply on his Motion for Preliminary Injunction with his Response to the Supplemental briefing promotes efficiency and the orderly consideration of the issues, and that such consolidation falls well within the Court’s power to administer and control its docket. See e.g., Hartsel Springs Ranch of Colorado, Inc. v. Bluegreen Corp., 296 F.3d 982, 985 (10th Cir. 2002). The Court vacates the June 3 deadline for Plaintiff's Reply and hereby sets the following briefing schedule: 1. Defendants’ Supplemental Brief due on or before June 10, 2022. The brief shall be limited to eight (8) pages.

2. Plaintiff's reply brief encompassing both a reply to Defendants’ Response and a response to the supplemental briefing due on or before June 24, 2022. The brief shall be limited to twenty-four (24) pages, the limit for a response, rather than twelve (12) pages, the ordinary limit for a reply. See D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.5.

IT IS SO ORDERED. , UNITED STATES DISTRICT GE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO COUY GRIFFIN, Plaintiff, V. Case No. 22-cv-362 KG/GJF MARCO WHITE, MARK MITCHELL, and LESLIE LAKIND, acting under color of New Mexico law, Defendants. ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Emergency Motion for leave to File Supplemental Brief and Modify Briefing Schedule. (Doc. 24). Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion. (Doc. 25). Having reviewed the briefing, the Court grants the Motion. The Court concludes that additional briefing, especially on the issue of abstention, will be helpful for adjudication of this action. The Court also concludes that consolidating Plaintiff's Reply on his Motion for Preliminary Injunction with his Response to the Supplemental briefing promotes efficiency and the orderly consideration of the issues, and that such consolidation falls well within the Court’s power to administer and control its docket. See e.g., Hartsel Springs Ranch of Colorado, Inc. v. Bluegreen Corp., 296 F.3d 982, 985 (10th Cir. 2002). The Court vacates the June 3 deadline for Plaintiff's Reply and hereby sets the following briefing schedule: 1. Defendants’ Supplemental Brief due on or before June 10, 2022. The brief shall be limited to eight (8) pages.

2. Plaintiff's reply brief encompassing both a reply to Defendants’ Response and a response to the supplemental briefing due on or before June 24, 2022. The brief shall be limited to twenty-four (24) pages, the limit for a response, rather than twelve (12) pages, the ordinary limit for a reply. See D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.5.

IT IS SO ORDERED. , UNITED STATES DISTRICT GE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Griffin v. White, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffin-v-white-nmd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack