Harvey v. City of South Lake Tahoe et al

Filing 37

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/5/11 ORDERING that the plaintiff's request for a hearing 36 is denied. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DANIEL THOMAS HARVEY,

11

Plaintiff,
vs.

12
13
14

No. CIV S-10-1653 GEB EFB PS

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE;
EL DORADO COUNTY; ANDREW
EISSINGER; CHARLES DUKE,
ORDER

15

Defendants.
_________________________________/

16
17

This action, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned in

18

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21).

19

On September 26, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for a hearing. Dckt. No. 36. However, on

20

September 27, 2011, the assigned district judge issued an order dismissing plaintiff’s first

21

amended complaint in its entirety, with leave to amend as to some of plaintiff’s claims. Dckt.

22

No. 35. Plaintiff has not yet filed a second amended complaint, as authorized therein.

23

Therefore, there is currently no operative complaint in this action.

24

////

25

////

26

////
1

1
2

Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for a hearing, Dckt. No. 36, is denied.1
Dated: October 5, 2011.

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

25
26

Plaintiff’s request for a hearing also fails to comply with this court’s Local Rules and
appears to be based on new factual allegations that were not alleged in plaintiff’s first amended
complaint and are not authorized to be included in any second amended complaint plaintiff files.
See Dckt. No. 33 at 17:17; Dckt. No. 35 at 2.
2