Mizerak v. Eslick et al

Filing 43

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/2/2017 ORDERING that, with respect to motion practice, this action will proceed under Local Rule 230 in general and not Local Rule 230(l) specifically. However, defendants' pending motion to dismiss will still proceed under Local Rule 230(l). (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN SAMUEL MIZERAK, JR.,

12

No. 2:16-cv-0323 CKD P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ESLICK, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

Defendants Eslick and Foxworty request that, with respect to motion practice, this action

18

proceed under Local Rule 230 in general and not Local Rule 230(l) specifically because plaintiff

19

is no longer incarcerated. Plaintiff has not opposed the request. Good cause appearing,

20

defendants’ request will be granted with the provision that Local Rule 230(l) will still apply to

21

defendants’ pending motion to dismiss since the motion was filed prior to the issuance of this

22

order.

23

/////

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, with respect to motion practice, this action

2

will proceed under Local Rule 230 in general and not Local Rule 230(l) specifically. However,

3

defendants’ pending motion to dismiss will still proceed under Local Rule 230(1).

4

Dated: October 2, 2017

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10

1
mize0323.230

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