Minhas v. Vilsack

Filing 11

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 12/05/11 ORDERING that plaintiff has not filed a motion to stay, therefore, the notice requirement in 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(17) need not be addressed, and plaintiff's 8 Application to Shorten Time is DENIED. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7

MANBINDER SINGH MINHAS,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12
13

v.
TOM VILSACK, in his capacity as
Secretary of the United States
Department of Agriculture,
Defendant.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-03200-GEB-EFB
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN
ORDER SHORTENING TIME

14

On December 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed an “Ex Parte Application

15

for Order Shortening Time for Hearing on Motion to Stay Six-Month SNAP

16

Disqualification Pending De Novo Review”. (ECF No. 8.) “Plaintiff

17

requests that the Court set a hearing on or before December 9, 2011.”

18

Id. 1:27-28. Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s application

19

arguing no motion to stay has yet been filed and, under 7 U.S.C. §

20

2023(a)(17), a motion to stay “must be made on not less than ten days’

21

notice.” (ECF No. 9.)

22

Plaintiff has not filed a motion to stay. Therefore, the

23

notice requirement in 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(17) need not be addressed, and

24

Plaintiff’s application is DENIED.

25

Dated:

December 5, 2011

26
27
28

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

1