Hernandez v. Unknown

Filing 44

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/11/10 DENYING 40 Motion; DENYING 41 Motion; GRANTING 42 Motion for Extension of time. Within 35 days of the date of service of this order, defendants shall file any motion for summary judgment which they wish to pursue.(Dillon, M)

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 vs. KAREN KELLY, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed two motions with the court to report defendants' alleged failure to timely adhere to the court's scheduling order. In his motions, plaintiff appears to claim that defendants have failed to comply with the court's discovery deadline but does not explain how or in what way defendants have failed to do so. In this regard, the court is unable to determine what plaintiff's complaint is or what relief he is seeking. Accordingly, the court must deny plaintiff's motion. Also pending before the court is defendants' request for an extension of time to file a dispositive motion in this matter. Good cause appearing, the court will grant defendants' request. ///// 1 ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JORGE HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1986 GEB DAD P

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
DAD:9 hern1986.36msj

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's November 6, 2009 and December 28, 2009 motions (Doc. Nos. 40 & 41) are denied; 2. Defendants' January 4, 2010 request for an extension of time (Doc. No. 42) is granted; and 3. Within thirty-five days of the date of service of this order, defendants shall file any motion for summary judgment which they wish to pursue. DATED: January 11, 2010.

2