Anderson v. Kelso, et al.
Filing
186
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/22/2015 DISREGARDING plaintiff's 185 motion of abandoment; the Clerk shall serve a copy of this order on plaintiff Samuel Anderson at CSP-Lancaster; the Clerk shall serve a copy of plaintiff's "Second Motion of Abandonment" on plaintiff's counsel; and within 30 days, plaintiff's counsel shall file a brief statement with the court that he has been in communication with his client. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SANUEL ANDERSON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:12-cv-0261 MCE KJN P
v.
ORDER
MATTHEW TATE, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding through counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant
17
18
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is set for jury trial before the Honorable Morrison C. England
19
on July 6, 2015.
On January 5, 2015, plaintiff, himself, filed a pleading titled “Second Motion of
20
21
Abandonment.” (ECF No. 185.) In this pleading, plaintiff alleges that his counsel has
22
“disappeared.” Plaintiff may contact the court through counsel. For this reason, except as
23
directed below, plaintiff’s “motion of abandonment” is disregarded.
24
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
25
1. Plaintiff’s motion of abandonment (ECF No. 185) is disregarded;
26
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on plaintiff Samuel
27
Anderson, V-84409, California State Prison-Lancaster, P.O. Box 8457, Lancaster, California,
28
93539;
1
1
2
3
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of plaintiff’s “Second Motion of
Abandonment” (ECF No. 185) on plaintiff’s counsel.
4. Within thirty (30) days of this date of this order, plaintiff’s counsel is to file a brief
4
statement with the court that he has been in communication with his client.
5
Dated: January 22, 2015
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
An261.mot
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?