Bealer v. Secretary of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 33

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 31 Plaintiff's Motion to Stay signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/2/2017. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTWOINE BEALER, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00671-LJO-MJS (PC) ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY (ECF No. 31) v. SECRETARY OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., 16 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 On April 24, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint with 22 leave to amend. (ECF No. 22.) On May 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of 23 time to file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 25.) On May 22, 2017, the Court 24 granted Plaintiff’s request and ordered him to file his amended complaint within thirty 25 days. (ECF No. 28.) 26 On June 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Stay” (ECF No. 31) the action due to 27 asserted inability to access legal materials and resources needed to prepare an 28 amended complaint. However, while Plaintiff’s said motion was pending, he filed a 1 second amended complaint on June 22, 2017, within the time allotted in the Court’s May 2 22 Order. (ECF No. 32.) 3 4 5 6 The filing of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (ECF No. 32) demonstrates that he does not require a stay to enable it to be filed. His motion is now moot. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to stay the action (ECF No. 31) is HEREBY DENIED as moot. 7 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 2, 2017 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?