Mario Amador Gonzalez v. Warden Soto et al

Filing 110

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to Submit Evidence in Response to Defendants' Motion to Strike Within Twenty-One (21) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 4/9/2018. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MARIO AMADOR GONZALEZ, 9 10 11 12 Plaintiff, v. 15 16 ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE DR. SCHARFFENBERG and R.N. S. SOTO, Defendants. 13 14 Case No. 1:16-cv-01675-DAD-EPG (PC) Mario Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 6, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s objections to the 17 Court’s findings and recommendations. 18 objections should be stricken because they are improper and defamatory. 19 20 (ECF No. 109). According to Defendants, the Under Local Rule 230(l), Plaintiff has twenty-one days after the date of service of Defendants’ motion to file and serve his opposition to the motion. 21 IT IS ORDERED that, if Plaintiff chooses to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion, 22 Plaintiff shall file evidence that the Office of the Attorney General was involved in the denial 23 of his medical care. Failure to file this evidence will result in the Court granting Defendants’ 24 motion to strike. IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: April 9, 2018 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 1

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?