Peet v. Sidney

CourtDistrict Court, D. Minnesota
DecidedSeptember 13, 2018
Docket0:17-cv-01870
StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook
Peet v. Sidney, (mnd 2018).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

John E. Peet, Case No. 17-cv-1870 (DWF/TNL)

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

Michele K. Smith, Acting Director MN Hud Dept,

Lendine Darden International,

Sue Morfit, New Orleans Court Apt,

Mark Jones, New Orleans Court Apt,

Mark Z. Jones, Highland Management Group Inc.,

Michelle Luna, Housing Specialist HRA, and

Debbie Goettel, Mayor of Richfield MN Now Commissioner Hennepin County,

Defendants.

Presently, Defendants Debbie Goettel, Michelle Luna, Sue Morfitt, and “Mark Jones” (collectively, “Defendants”) have filed motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 33, 37), which are scheduled to be heard on September 26, 2018. (ECF No. 49.) On September 10, 2018, pro se Plaintiff John E. Peet filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 52.) Also on September 10, Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of the September 26 hearing date. (ECF No. 55.) Defendants Sue Morfitt and “Mark Jones” oppose the requested extension.

In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the efficiencies to be gained by hearing these three motions together, and the Court’s discretion in managing its docket, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion. See, e.g., Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1892, 195 (2016) (“[D]istrict courts have the inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases.”); Zerger & Mauer LLP v. City of Greenwood, 751 F.3d 928, 931 (8th Cir. 2014) (“[A]ll courts have inherent authority to ‘manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” (quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991)). THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff’s Request for Extension of Time for Court Hearing Motion (ECF No. 55) is GRANTED.

2. The Court shall hear Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 33, 37) and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 52) on November 1, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 9W of the U.S. Courthouse, 300 South Fourth Street, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415.

Dated: September 13 , 2018 s/ Tony N. Leung TONY N. LEUNG United States Magistrate Judge

Peet v. Smith et al. Case No. 17-cv-1870 (DWF/TNL)

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

Related

Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.
501 U.S. 32 (Supreme Court, 1991)
Zerger & Mauer LLP v. City of Greenwood
751 F.3d 928 (Eighth Circuit, 2014)
Dietz v. Bouldin
579 U.S. 40 (Supreme Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Peet v. Sidney, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peet-v-sidney-mnd-2018.