Hardy v. Davis et al

Filing 51

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 07/17/15 granting 46 Motion for Extension of time and denying 48 Motion to Stay. Plaintiff is granted 60 days from the date of this order in which to file and serve an amended complaint. Pursuant to order of the district court dated 06/10/15, defendants' answer is due no later than 21 days after the filing of the amended complaint. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KRISTIN HARDY,

12

No. 2:13-cv-0726 JAM DAD P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

C. DAVIS, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
On June 23, 2015, plaintiff filed a request for a thirty-day extension of time in which to

17
18

file and serve an amended complaint pursuant to the court’s order of June 10, 2015. (ECF

19

No. 46.) On July 2, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to stay this action for sixty days pending his

20

transfer to another prison. (ECF No. 48.) Having considered both filings, and the fact that no

21

discovery and scheduling order has yet issued in this matter, it appears that, rather than grant a

22

stay, the better course of action is to grant plaintiff a sixty-day extension of time in which to file

23

an amended complaint.

24

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

25

1. Plaintiff’s June 23, 2015 motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 46) is granted.

26

2. Plaintiff’s July 2, 2015 motion to stay the proceedings (ECF No. 48) is denied.

27

////

28

////

1

3. Plaintiff is granted 60 days from the date of this order in which to file and serve an

2

amended complaint. Pursuant to order of the district court dated June 10, 2015, defendants’

3

answer is due no later than 21 days after the filing of the amended complaint.

4

Dated: July 17, 2015

5
6
7
8

DAD:10
hard0726.36amc

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