Moncrief v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabiliation et al

Filing 135

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 5/26/2017 DENYING 134 Motion for Appointment of Investigative Judge and ORDERING Defendants to file response to 131 , 132 , and 133 Motion for Extensions within 14 days of the date of this order. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN PHILIP MONCRIEF,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:12-cv-0414 MCE AC P

v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
Plaintiff has requested the appointment of an investigative judge to review the case. ECF

18
19

No. 134. Since the court does not conduct investigations, this request will be denied.

20

Plaintiff also claims that he has suffered an eye injury that has substantially frustrated his

21

ability to read and his optometrist’s instruction to stop work has halted his course of action until

22

further examination by an eye specialist. ECF No. 133. In light of the escalating allegations

23

regarding the state of plaintiff’s vision, defendants shall be directed to respond to plaintiff’s

24

motions for extension (ECF Nos. 131-133).

25

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

26

1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of investigative judge (ECF No. 134) is denied;

27

////

28

////

1

2. Defendants shall file a response to plaintiff’s motions for extension (ECF Nos. 131-

2

133) within fourteen days of the date of this order.

3

DATE: May 26, 2017

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2