Padilla v. United States Patent Office et al.

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 2/23/2021 ADVISING Plaintiff that the courtroom deputy cannot answer legal questions or questions about filing, and such communications will be DISREGARDED. Plaintiff is further advised that documents filed by Plaintiff since the closing date will be DISREGARDED and no orders will issue in response to future filings.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIA D. PADILLA, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:16-cv-02631-GEB-AC Plaintiff, v. ORDER UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE, Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter pro se, and accordingly this motion was referred to 18 the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). It has come to the court’s attention that 19 plaintiff has been e-mailing the courtroom deputy with legal questions. Plaintiff’s case was 20 closed over three years ago, on July 27, 2017. ECF No. 6. 21 Plaintiff is advised that the courtroom deputy cannot answer legal questions or questions 22 about filing, and such communications will be disregarded. Plaintiff is further advised that 23 documents filed by plaintiff since the closing date will be disregarded and no orders will issue in 24 response to future filings. 25 DATED: February 23, 2021 26 27 28 1

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?