Powell v. Madden, et al.

Filing 55

ORDER REGARDING Motion at Docket 53 , signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 3/13/14: Motion is DENIED. (Hellings, J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TONY EDWARD POWELL,
Case No. 1:13-cv-00057-RRB
Plaintiff,
ORDER REGARDING
MOTION AT DOCKET 53

vs.
MADDEN, et al.,
Defendants.

At Docket 53 Plaintiff Tony Edward Powell, a federal prisoner appearing pro se,
filed a document entitled “Petition for Clarity.” It appears from that document that Powell
is laboring under the misconception that leave of court is required before a party must
respond to a motion or the motion may be granted. Nothing in the rules of practice so
provide. The Court also notes that Defendants’ motion itself referred to the applicable local
rules regarding an answer. Furthermore, this Court provided Powell with guidance on
responding to the Defendants’ motion.1 Accordingly, the Petition for Clarity at Docket 53
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of March, 2014.
S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Docket 51.

ORDER REGARDING MOTION AT DOCKET 53
Powell v. Madden, 1:13-cv-00057-RRB