Thomas v. Antipov et al

Filing 49

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/22/2012 ORDERING that plaintiff's 40 motion to modify the scheduling order, and 42 motion to amend the complaint are DENIED as moot in light of the court's 4/11/12 order. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JAMAAL THOMAS, Plaintiff, 11 12 vs. 13 No. CIV S-11-1138 MCE EFB P ANTIPOV, et al., 14 Defendants. / 15 16 ORDER Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and without counsel in an action 17 brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 11, 2012, the court granted plaintiff’s March 12, 18 2012 motion to amend his complaint add the names of three Doe defendants. Dckt. No. 38. The 19 court also vacated the deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions set in the September 13, 20 2011 discovery scheduling order. After docketing that order, the Clerk docketed two motions 21 drafted by plaintiff: (1) a motion to modify the scheduling order dated January 17, 2012, Dckt. 22 No. 40, and (2) a motion to amend the complaint dated December 28, 2011, Dckt. No. 42. Those 23 motions are denied as moot in light of the court’s April 11, 2012 order. 24 So ordered. 25 DATED: May 22, 2012. 26

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?