Kirk v. Rackley et al

Filing 32

ORDER denying 29 Motion to be relieved from the current scheduling order signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 12/13/10. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
(PC) Kirk v. Rackley et al Doc. 32 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. R.J. RACKLEY, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's request to be relieved from the current scheduling order (Doc. 29). No scheduling order has issued in this case as no answer has been filed. Defendants have been served, and have filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the motion and it is currently pending before the court. The court does not generally issue a scheduling order until after an answer to plaintiff's complaint has been filed and the case is at issue. Accordingly, as no scheduling order has been filed, there is no relief available to plaintiff. The court will issue a scheduling order, if appropriate, after the motion to dismiss has been resolved. 1 Dockets.Justia.com IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LARRY W. KIRK, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1866-FCD-CMK-P ORDER 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 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request (Doc. 29) to be relieved from the current scheduling order is denied as moot. DATED: December 13, 2010 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

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?