Hunt v. Matevousian et al

Filing 33

ORDER DENYING Motion for Stay of Proceedings as Moot 31 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/9/2018. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MAURICE HUNT,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:16-cv-01560-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY OF
PROCEEDINGS AS MOOT

v.
(ECF No. 31)
MATEVOUSIAN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Maurice Hunt (“Plaintiff”) is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

18

rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403

19

U.S. 388 (1971).

20

On June 15, 2018, the Court issued an amended screening order and findings and

21

recommendations recommending dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a

22

claim, and denial of Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (ECF No. 29.) The Court

23

found that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a cognizable Bivens claim for relief pursuant to

24

Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1857 (2017), and in light of Plaintiff’s repeated refusals to file

25

an amended complaint, the deficiencies in the complaint could not be cured by amendment.

26

Those findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any

27

objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 14.) On July 3,

28

2018, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff’s request for a thirty-day extension of time to
1

1

file his objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF Nos. 30, 32.) Plaintiff’s

2

objections are currently due on or before August 6, 2018. (ECF No. 32.)

3

On July 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to temporarily stay the proceedings in this action.

4

(ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff states that on June 25, 2018, he was informed by prison officials that he

5

would be transferred to another facility soon, but was not told the destination due to security

6

purposes. Plaintiff states he will be unable to maintain his legal property until he arrives at his

7

new facility, and he will inform the Court as soon as possible of his new address. (Id.)

8

As it appears that Plaintiff’s motion for stay has crossed in the mail with the Court’s July

9

3, 2018 order granting an extension of time to file objections, Plaintiff’s motion, (ECF No. 31), is

10

DENIED as moot. Plaintiff’s objections remain due on or before August 6, 2018. Plaintiff may

11

seek a further extension of time, with good cause shown, if he is unable to meet that deadline.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

July 9, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2