Pitts v. Davis et al

Filing 155

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 08/04/15 ordering that plaintiff's motion for extension of time 152 and motion to withdraw his previous motions and objections 153 are denied as moot. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EDDIE L. PITTS,

12

No. 2:12-cv-0823 TLN AC P
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

C. DAVIS, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

17
18

42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On July 23, 2015,1 plaintiff filed a request for extension of time to file his response to

19
20

defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 152) and a motion to withdraw his

21

objections to the motion to dismiss and previous motion for extension (ECF No. 153). The

22

motions were not entered on the docket until after the court issued an order construing the

23

objections as a motion to extend plaintiff’s time to respond until after resolution of the pending

24

motion to compel. ECF No. 151. In granting the motion, the court vacated plaintiff’s deadline to

25

respond to defendants’ motion for summary judgment and advised it would not be re-set until

26

///

27
28

1

Since plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is afforded the benefit of the prison mailbox rule.
See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
1

1

after the motion to compel had been resolved. Id. The court’s July, 27, 2015 order therefore

2

renders plaintiff’s motions moot and they will be denied as such.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for extension of time

4

(ECF No. 152) and motion to withdraw his previous motions and objections (ECF No. 153) are

5

denied as moot.

6

DATED: August 4, 2015

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