Frazier v. Redding Police Department et al

Filing 79

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/5/12 ORDERING that Plaintiffs motions, filed on November 15, 2012 67 and 71 , are denied as moot. Plaintiffs November 16, 2012 72 motion for a protective order and/or further extension of time regarding filing his opposition to the now-vacated summary judgment motion is denied without prejudice for the reasons stated above. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

MATTHEW LUCAS FRAZIER,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:11-cv-1351 AC P

vs.
REDDING POLICE DEPT., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

18

parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. By order filed on November

19

19, 2012, a number of plaintiff’s then-pending motions, primarily concerned with discovery

20

matters, were adjudicated. Shortly prior to the issuance of November 19th order, plaintiff filed

21

additional motions. In the motion at Docket No. 67, plaintiff seeks a ruling as to motions he

22

filed at Doc. No. 47 and at Doc. No. 60; in the motion at Doc. No. 71, plaintiff seeks a ruling as

23

to a request he filed at Doc. No. 61. However, the motions for which plaintiff sought

24

adjudication were addressed in the order of November 19, 2012. Therefore, plaintiff’s motions

25

at Doc. Nos. 67 and 71 will be denied as moot.

26
1

1

Plaintiff’s November 16, 2012 motion for a protective order asks the court to

2

invoke the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to direct non-parties at Pleasant Valley State Prison

3

to provide him copies of documents he seeks to submit in opposition to defendants’ motion for

4

summary judgment. That issue has been rendered at least temporarily moot, as has the request

5

for a further extension of time to file petitioner’s opposition to the summary judgment motion.

6

The court vacated the summary judgment motion at issue in the November 19, 2012 order,

7

subject to its being re-noticed once defendants have served plaintiff with specified discovery.

8

The denial of this motion will be without prejudice.

9

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

10
11

1. Plaintiff’s motions, filed on November 15, 2012 (Doc. Nos. 67 and 71), are
denied as moot.

12

2. Plaintiff’s November 16, 2012 (Doc. No. 72) motion for a protective order

13

and/or further extension of time regarding filing his opposition to the now-vacated summary

14

judgment motion is denied without prejudice for the reasons stated above.

15

DATED: December 5, 2012.

16
____/s/______________________________
ALLISON CLAIRE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18

AC:009
fraz1351.msc

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2