Logan v. CDCR et al

Filing 9

ORDER DISREGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 08/29/2024. Accordingly, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, Defendants' August 27, 2024 motion for extension of time to file a responsive pleading (ECF No. 7 ) is HEREBY DISREGARDED. (Nguyen, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

1:24-cv-00877-SAB

JAMAL LOGAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.

ORDER DISREGARDING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE A
RESPONSIVE PLEADING
(ECF Nos. 7, 8)

Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding with counsel, filed this civil rights action on July 17, 2024

19

in the Sacramento division. (ECF No. 1.) On July 31, 2024, the action was transferred to the

20

Fresno division. (ECF No. 3.) On August 27, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for extension of

21

time to file a responsive pleading, without stipulation. (ECF No. 7.) On August 28, 2024, the

22

parties filed a stipulation for a twenty-eight day extension of time for Defendants to file a

23

responsive pleading. (ECF No. 8.) Defendants request to withdraw their motion filed on August

24

27, 2024. (Id. at 2.)

25

Pursuant to the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, a stipulated initial

26

extension of time to respond to the complaint that does not exceed twenty-eight days may be filed

27

without approval by the Court. L.R. 144(a). Given the parties’ stipulation requests an extension

28

of time that does not exceed twenty-eight days, no Court order is necessary.
1

1

Accordingly, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, Defendants’ August 27, 2024

2

motion for extension of time to file a responsive pleading (ECF No. 7) is HEREBY

3

DISREGARDED.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 29, 2024
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2