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