Lee v. Wilkinson, et al

Filing 30

ORDER Denying Motions (Docs. 28 , 29 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 9/27/2010. It is ORDERED that: Plaintiff's May 6, 2010, motion requesting that Title 15 be "accepted into evidence" is DENIED; and Plaintiff's August 12, 2010, motion requesting an extension of time is DENIED. (Scrivner, E)

(PC) Lee v. Wilkinson, et al

Doc. 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CORNELIUS V. LEE, Plaintiff, v. L. WILKINSON, et al., Defendants. /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00722-AWI-SKO PC ORDER DENYING MOTIONS (Docs. 28, 29)

Plaintiff Cornelius V. Lee ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion "Requesting That The Title 15 Be Accepted Into Evidence." (Doc. #28.) Plaintiff has attached a copy of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations to his motion. It is unclear why Plaintiff has submitted a copy of Title 15 to the Court. Plaintiff is advised that evidence should only be submitted to this Court in support of a motion for summary judgment, at trial, or as otherwise permitted or requested by the Court.1 Plaintiff's motion will be denied. On August 12, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an extension of time to conduct discovery. (Doc. #29.) Plaintiff's motion argues that he is unable to meet the August 1, 2010, deadline for conducting discovery and requests an extension of time. However, the deadline for conducting discovery is November 1, 2010, not August 1, 2010. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time will be denied.

The Court will not maintain improperly submitted evidence.

1
Dockets.Justia.com

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

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's May 6, 2010, motion requesting that Title 15 be "accepted into evidence" is DENIED; and 2. Plaintiff's August 12, 2010, motion requesting an extension of time is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ie14hj September 27, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2