Coley v. Sisto et al

Filing 89

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge George W. Foley on 7/28/9 ORDERING that Plaintiff's MOTION to Clarify 87 is GRANTED and the Court has provided clarification. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Clarify Status (Dkt. #87), filed on July 23, 2009. Plaintiff requests clarification of whether the case has been closed. (Id.) Plaintiff's confusion is due to an error in the Court's docket. (See Clerk notes to Dkt. #69). On May 28, 2009, Judge Pro issued an Order granting Defendant Traquina's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. #69). The Order dismissed Defendant Traquina from this matter, leaving Defendant Cassim as the only remaining defendant in this suit. (Id.) However, the docket erroneously notes that the case is closed as a result of the Court's granting of Defendant Traquina's Motion for Summary Judgment. This docket error will be corrected as Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Cassim remain pending before the Court. Currently, there are two motions pending before the Court. On June 8, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the Order granting summary judgment (Dkt. #72), which Defendant Traquina opposed on June 16, 2009 (Dkt. #73). On July 6, 2009, Defendant Cassim then filed his own motion for summary judgment with the Court. (Dkt. #78). Plaintiff then requested (Dkt. #83) and received an extension of time to oppose Defendant Cassim's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #85). The Court has yet to rule on Plaintiff's motion to vacate (Dkt. #72) and Defendant Cassim's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #78). ANDREW CALVIN COLEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) DR. CASSIM, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 2:07-cv-00934-PMP-GWF ORDER Motion to Clarify Status (Dkt. #87)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff also requests the status of his seventh motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. #74). The Court denied this most recent request for appointment of counsel on June 29, 2009. (Dkt. #75). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Clarify Status (Dkt. #87) is GRANTED and the Court has provided clarification in the discussion above. DATED this 28th day of July, 2009.

GEORGE FOLEY, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2