King v. Price
Filing
24
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/10/17 ORDERING that plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 23 ) is DENIED as moot.(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KEVIN LYNELL KING,
12
13
14
No. 2:16-cv-1998 KJM KJN P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
JEROME PRICE, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
On January 3, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
18
On December 19, 2016, plaintiff’s notice of appeal of the October 13, 2016 order, addressed to
19
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, was processed to the Ninth Circuit on December
20
20, 2016 (ECF No. 22), and remains pending. Thus, no additional time or filing is required
21
concerning an appeal of the October 13, 2016 order because the appeal has been processed to the
22
Ninth Circuit.
23
Plaintiff also seeks a thirty day extension of time to “allow the district court to dispose of
24
plaintiff’s notice of motion for objections to findings and recommendations (ECF No. 15) so
25
plaintiff may appeal that decision to the Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 23.) However, as explained
26
in this court’s November 28, 2016 order, no findings and recommendations have issued in this
27
case. Rather, plaintiff is required to file an amended complaint on or before January 28, 2016.
28
(ECF No. 17.)
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time
2
(ECF No. 23) is denied as moot.
3
Dated: January 10, 2017
4
5
king1998.36
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?