Nguyen v. California Prison Health Service, et al.
Filing
81
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/18/2017 DENYING as moot plaintiff's 76 motion to postpone. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
NAM BA NGUYEN,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
No. 2:13-cv-963-MCE-EFB P
v.
ORDER
CALIFORNIA PRISON HEALTH
SERVICE, et al.,
Defendants.
15
Plaintiff, who is housed at Theo Lacy Facility, has filed a “request to postpone the case for
16
17
90 days,” which was docketed as a motion on July 11, 2017. ECF No. 76 at 1. Therein, he
18
asserts that he is handling a “difficult [i]mmigration matter” and lacks “direct access to [a] law
19
library” in his facility. Id. Further, he asserts that, whenever he requests copies of cited cases, it
20
takes him at least three weeks to receive the material. Id. For these reasons, he contends that he
21
would not have time to respond to any potential action the court might take on the case.
The court recently took action on his case. On July 28, 2017, the court recommended that
22
23
defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. ECF No. 78. The findings and
24
recommendations stated that plaintiff could file objections within fourteen days. Id. at 20.
25
Plaintiff requested a 30-day extension of time to file objections to the findings and
26
recommendations, which the court granted. ECF Nos. 79, 80. In light of these developments,
27
plaintiff’s motion to postpone the case now appears to be moot.
28
/////
1
1
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to postpone
2
(ECF No. 76) is denied as moot.
3
Dated: September 18, 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
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?