Charles David Williams, Jr. v. Barreau

Filing 43

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 42 Plaintiff's Motion for Transcripts signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 1/29/2010. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 CHARLES DAVID WILLIAMS, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff Charles David Williams ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A telephonic conference was held on January 11, 2010. On January 12, 2010, the Court issued an order explaining that the parties agreed to extend time for Defendants to file a motion for summary judgment. Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on January 20, 2010. Pursuant to the January 12, 2010, Plaintiff's opposition is due 30 days from the date of service. On January 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled, "Motion for Telephonic Hearing Transcripts Held on January 11, 2010." He requests a transcript from the telephonic conference and any related orders that were issued. The telephonic conference was an informal conference that was not recorded. Accordingly, although there are minutes from the conference, there is not a transcript. The ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) PORTERVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT ) et.al., ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) 1:08cv546 AWI DLB UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTS (Document 42) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 January 12, 2010, order is the official document related to the hearing. Plaintiff was served with this order, by mail, on January 12, 2010. No further orders were entered. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a January 29, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?