McDeid v. Johnston
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:18-cv-03361
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In McDeid v. Johnston, Judge Leung granted referral, denied a stay, and partly granted and partly denied an extension request.
Ricky L. McDeid and the defendants—Nancy Johnston, Emily Johnson Piper, and Lori Swanson—were affected by the scheduling and case-management rulings.
What happened
In McDeid v. Johnston, Ricky L. McDeid, who was representing himself, asked for a referral to a volunteer lawyer project, a pause in the case, and more time to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The court granted the referral but explained that a volunteer lawyer was not required to represent him. It denied the request to pause the case because McDeid had not connected his case to the appeal he cited. It granted in part and denied in part his request for more time.
Judge Tony N. Leung ordered McDeid to file a supplemental response by May 13, 2019, and allowed the defendants until May 28, 2019, to file a supplemental reply. The court did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss in this order.
The detailed version
- McDeid v. Johnston · No. 0:18-cv-03361
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Apr. 18, 2019
Background
Ricky L. McDeid, proceeding without a lawyer, filed three requests: referral to the Federal Bar Association’s Pro Se Project, a stay postponing the case until an appeal in a related matter was resolved, and an extension of time to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss his first amended complaint.
Rulings
The court granted the referral request. It explained that the referral would be made by separate letter and that a volunteer lawyer might decline to represent McDeid; the court did not require a lawyer to assist him.
The court denied the motion to stay. It stated that the basis for the requested stay was unclear and that McDeid had not connected the issues in his case to the pending appeal he cited. The court concluded that he had not met his burden to show that a stay was appropriate.
The court granted in part and denied in part McDeid’s request for an extension of time. It gave him until May 13, 2019, to file a supplemental memorandum responding to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The defendants were given until May 28, 2019, to file a supplemental reply. After that, the motion to dismiss would be considered submitted, and the court stated that it would issue a report and recommendation based on the written filings, without a hearing.
Disposition and scope
The order ruled only on the referral, stay, and extension requests. It did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss or the merits of McDeid’s underlying claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.