Sloan v. Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 34

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/11/2017 CONSTRUING plaintiff's 32 objections to the 9/6/2017 order as a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff's 33 motion for a response to his motion for reconsideration is GRAN TED to the extent outlined in this order, the request is otherwise DENIED. Plaintiff's 33 motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint is GRANTED and he will not be required to file an amended complaint until the district judge rules on his motion for reconsideration.(Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHNNY LEE SLOAN, JR.,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:15-cv-1921 MCE AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AND REHABILITATION, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff has requested a response from the court to his objections (ECF No. 32) to the

19

September 6, 2017 order dismissing his first amended complaint with leave to amend (ECF No.

20

31). ECF No. 33. He also requests that he be granted an extension of time to file an amended

21

complaint. Id. at 5-6.

22

Plaintiff’s objections to the September 6, 2017 order are construed by the court as a

23

motion for reconsideration by the district judge of the magistrate judge’s ruling, and the motion is

24

pending before the district judge assigned to this case. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for a

25

response is granted to the extent that he is advised that the district judge will issue a ruling on the

26

motion for reconsideration in due course. The request is otherwise denied. Plaintiff’s request for

27

an extension of time to file an amended complaint will be granted and he will not be required to

28

submit an amended complaint until the district judge has ruled on his motion for reconsideration.
1

1

If the district judge affirms the September 6, 2017 order, plaintiff will be given a new deadline to

2

file an amended complaint.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. Plaintiff’s objections to the September 6, 2017 order (ECF No. 32) are construed as a

5
6
7
8
9

motion for reconsideration.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for a response to his motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 33) is
granted to the extent outlined above. The request is otherwise denied.
3. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 33)
is granted and he will not be required to file an amended complaint until the district judge rules

10

on his motion for reconsideration.

11

DATED: October 11, 2017

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