Spencer v. Brott
- Tony Leung
- 0:17-cv-05220
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Spencer v. Brott, Judge Leung granted Marvin Spencer more time to respond to defendants’ summary-judgment motion in two consolidated cases.
Marvin Spencer received additional time to respond in both consolidated cases; Todd Leonard, Michelle Skroch, and Gwen Blossom England received corresponding deadlines for any reply.
What happened
In Spencer v. Brott, Marvin Spencer, who was representing himself, asked for more time to respond to a summary-judgment motion filed by Todd Leonard, Michelle Skroch, and Gwen Blossom England.
Spencer said he lacked access to his legal materials while housed in the special housing unit or administrative detention. A unit manager confirmed that he had little or no access to those materials since September 27, 2020. The response deadline had been October 7, 2020, and the defendants did not oppose an extension.
Judge Tony N. Leung granted the motion and set January 15, 2021, as the new deadline for Spencer’s response. If he filed a response, the defendants’ reply would be due February 1, 2021; the court would then issue a report and recommendation based on the written submissions, without a hearing.
The detailed version
- Spencer v. Brott · No. 0:17-cv-05220
- Tony Leung
- Nov. 18, 2020
Background
Marvin Spencer, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion for an extension of time in the two related cases identified as Spencer I and Spencer II. The court had consolidated the cases on January 23, 2019. Spencer’s motion referred only to Spencer I, but the court construed it as requesting an extension in both cases.
The requested extension concerned a summary-judgment motion filed by Todd Leonard, M.D., Michelle Skroch, and Gwen Blossom England, whom the court collectively called the MEnD Defendants. Spencer did not specify the amount of additional time requested.
Reasons for the Extension
Spencer stated that he did not have access to his legal materials because he was housed in the special housing unit while under investigation. He submitted a letter from a unit manager confirming that he had been housed in administrative detention with little to no access to his legal documents and records since September 27, 2020.
The court noted that the response deadline had been October 7, 2020, and that Spencer filed his extension request more than one month after that deadline. The court also noted Spencer’s prior difficulties meeting deadlines and the court’s earlier warnings about future extension requests. At the same time, the MEnD Defendants did not object to the extension, and Spencer had provided the supporting documentation the court had required for future requests.
Ruling
Judge Tony N. Leung granted Spencer’s motion. The court ordered:
- Spencer’s response was due on or before January 15,
- 2. If no response was filed, the MEnD Defendants’ motion would be deemed under advisement as of January 15,
- 3. If Spencer filed a response, the MEnD Defendants’ reply was due on or before February 1,
- 4. The court would then issue a report and recommendation based on the written submissions, without a hearing.
The order did not decide the underlying summary-judgment motion. It warned that failure to comply with the order or earlier consistent orders could lead to appropriate remedies or sanctions, including costs, fines, attorney’s fees, limits on evidence, striking pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, or default judgment.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.