West v. (lnu) (1) et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
DONALD JOSEPH WEST,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 24-3051-JWB
CRYSTAL CARTER,
FCI LEAVENWORTH, WARDEN,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion of information concerning requests for
an extension of time. (Doc. 121.) The motion is GRANTED for the reasons stated herein.
Liberally construed, Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to respond to Defendant’s motion
to dismiss or, alternatively, motion for summary judgment (Doc. 111), citing ongoing lockdowns
and other conditions of his incarceration that render it impossible for him to properly prepare and
file a response. (Doc. 121.) Plaintiff requests an extension of thirty days following the conclusion
of the current lockdown. Plaintiff states that he will keep the court informed as to the status of the
lockdown. Accordingly, the court stays this case until such time as Plaintiff is able to respond to
Defendant’s pending motion.
Additionally, the Court notes that in Judge Lungstrum’s Memorandum and Order
(“M&O”) (Doc. 78), Plaintiff was instructed that he may only receive prospective injunctive relief
for certain claims that passed screening and was directed to include his specific requests for
injunctive relief in his third amended complaint (Doc. 79). Plaintiff substantially complied with
this directive; however, he instead chose to file five separate motions for injunctive relief. (Doc.
Case 5:24-cv-03051-JWB-JBW Document 122 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 2

2
80, 81, 82, 83, 84.) The court understands Plaintiff’s intent and, based on the record, construes
those filings as separate claims for specific injunctive relief preserved in his complaint instead of
motions seeking relief. Further, this construction is supported in that Plaintiff subsequently filed
additional motions for injunctive and declaratory relief based on his claims that will remain
pending on the docket. (See Docs. 95, 96, 106.) In light of this and the stay imposed herein, the
court denies Plaintiff’s motions filed in conjunction with his third amended complaint without
prejudice.
THEREFORE, Plaintiff is granted a stay until such time as Plaintiff is able to respond to
Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss or, alternatively, motion for summary judgment. Further,
Plaintiff’s motions for order (Docs. 80, 81, 82, 83, 84) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If
Plaintiff does not file a response to the pending motion to dismiss on or before March 31, 2026,
Plaintiff must provide a status report to the court on March 31, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 28th day of January, 2026.
____s/ John W. Broomes______________
JOHN W. BROOMES
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:24-cv-03051-JWB-JBW Document 122 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 2