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)
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?