Heram v. United States Government

Filing 47

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/4/2014 DENYING 43 Plaintiffs Motion for an order shortening time; Motion for Stay and Terminating Sanctions; Motion for Appointment of Counsel 37 , Hearing set for 9/17/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAGHVENDRA SINGH,

12
13
14

No. 2:13-cv-780-TLN-EFB PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

15

Defendant.

16
17

On August 12, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to stay, motion for terminating sanctions, and

18

a motion for appointment of counsel. 1 ECF No. 37. Plaintiff noticed his motions for hearing the

19

following day in violation of this court’s local rules. Id.; see E.D. Cal. L.R. 230. On August 13,

20

2014, the court issued a minute order, directing plaintiff to re-notice his motions for hearing in

21

compliance with the court’s local rules. ECF No. 38.

22

On August 14, 2014, plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for an order shortening time. ECF

23

No. 39. In this motion, plaintiff set his August 12, 2014 motions for hearing on September 17,

24

2014, but requested that the court hear the matter as soon as possible. Id. at 1. The motion to

25

shorten time addressed the merits of plaintiff’s claims and failed to provide any justification for

26

why the matter should be heard on an earlier date. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 144(e) (“Ex parte

27
28

1

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to
Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

1

applications to shorten time will not be granted except upon affidavit of counsel showing a

2

satisfactory explanation for the need for the issuance of such an order and for the failure of

3

counsel to obtain a stipulation for the issuance of such an order from other counsel or parties in

4

the action.”). Accordingly, the motion was denied.

5

On August 27, plaintiff filed another motion for an order shortening time. ECF No. 43.

6

This request again fails to comply with the court’s local rules. Plaintiff does not explain why he

7

did not obtain a stipulation for an order to shorten time, nor does he provide an affidavit showing

8

a satisfactory explanation for the need to shorten time. Accordingly, plaintiff’s August 27, 2014

9

ex parte motion is denied, and his motion to stay, motion for terminating sanctions, and motion

10

for appointment of counsel will be heard on September 17, 2014.

11

DATED: September 4, 2014.

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