You are on page 1of 4

Case 1:13-cv-00631-SS Document 28 Filed 11/27/13 Page 1 of 3

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT WESTERNDISTRICTOFTEXAS AUSTINDIVISION


CHRISTOPHERDANIELMCNOSKY& SVENSTRICKER
Plaintiffs,

CaseNo:A13CV0631
v.

TEXASGOVERNORRICKPERRY,etal
Defendants,

PLAINTIFFSOPPOSITIONTODEFENDANTSMOTIONFOREXTENSION OFTIMETOFILERESPONSEANDOBJECTIONSTOPLAINTIFFS AMENDEDMOTIONFORTEMPORARYRESTRAININGORDERAND PRELIMINARYINJUNCTION


TOTHEHONORABLESAMSPARKS: ThedefendantsarticulatedneedforaresponsedeadlineextensionregardingPlaintiffs AmendedMotionforPreliminaryInjunctionandTemporaryRestrainingOrder,makes littlesenseafterconsideringthefollowing: A. Noneofthefactsorlegalargumentsarticulatedinplaintiffsamendedmotionare differentfromthosearticulatedinplaintiffsoriginalmotion. 1. Theonlysignificantdifferencebetweenthetwomotionsisthatthelatter plaintiffsmotionincludestwomissingplaintiffsaffidavits,asrequiredbyRule 65(b)(1)(A),andarticulatedby(I)(A)ofStateDefendantsResponseto PlaintiffsAmendedMotionforPreliminaryInjunctionandTemporary RestrainingOrder. 2. Thesepreviouslyexcludedaffidavitsshouldhavelittleinfluence,ifany,on defendantsresponse.

Case 1:13-cv-00631-SS Document 28 Filed 11/27/13 Page 2 of 3

3. Asimpledeletionoftheabovecitedparagraph(I)(A)wouldbethemost significant,ifnotonly,potentialedittodefendantsrevisedresponse. B. Defendantsresponsetoplaintiffsmotionalreadyexistsinitsentirety. 1. Ittook7daystorespondtoplaintiffsinitialmotion,anendeavorthatrequires significantlymoretimeandeffortthanasimpleeditofthealreadycompleted defendantsresponse,presentlyfiledwiththeCourt. 2. Bydefault,defendantsareallotted21daystorespond,bringingthedeadlineto December13th.Thisdefaultdeadlineismorethanadequatetimeforthorough completionoftheminortaskathand. 3. Defendantsarenowaskingfor35daysforwhichtoaddminoreditstotheir alreadywrittenresponse. Additionally,extendingthedeadlineasrequestedbydefendantswouldunnecessarily depriveplaintiffsofatimelyresolutiontotheirclaims,extendingthechillontheir freedomofspeechrights,visvisassociation,affordedthembytheFirstAmendmentaswell astheirrightstoequalprotectionanddueprocessunderthelaw,affordedthembythe FourteenthAmendment.

CONCLUSION
Sincedefendantshavemorethanenoughadequatetimetoadequatelypreparetheir revisedresponse,DefendantsMotionforExtensionshouldbeDENIED,therebyaffirmingthe originalDecember13,2013responsedeadline. RespectfullySubmitted, /s/ChristopherDanielMcNosky_______ CHRISTOPHERDANIELMCNOSKY Prose /s/SvenStricker____________________ SVENSTRICKER Prose

Case 1:13-cv-00631-SS Document 28 Filed 11/27/13 Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
Iherebycertifyalldefendantswereservedwithacopyofthisresponsebyemail serviceonNovember27,2013,andputativecounselfordefendantshavealsobeenservedby emailonthatdate.

/s/ChristopherDanielMcNosky________ CHRISTOPHERDANIELMCNOSKY /s/SvenStricker_____________________ SVENSTRICKER

Case 1:13-cv-00631-SS Document 28-1 Filed 11/27/13 Page 1 of 1

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT WESTERNDISTRICTOFTEXAS AUSTINDIVISION


CHRISTOPHERDANIELMcNOSKY& SVENSTRICKER, Plaintiffs, v. TEXASGOVERNORRICKPERRY,etal Defendants, CaseNo.1:13CV0631SS

ORDER
TheCourthasbeforeitDefendantsOpposedMotionForExtensionofTimetoFile ResponseandObjectionstoPlaintiffsAmendedMotionforTemporaryRestrainingOrderand PreliminaryInjunction.HavingconsideredtheMotionandplaintiffsobjections,theCourtisof theopinionthatDefendantsMotionbeDENIED. ItisthereforeORDEREDthatDefendantsshallhaveuntilDecember13,2013tofile theirresponsivepleadingandobjectionstothePlaintiffsAmendedMotionforTemporary RestrainingOrderandPreliminaryInjunction.

SIGNEDthis_____dayofNovember,2013. ____________________________________ THEHONORABLESAMSPARKS UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTJUDGE