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)
<![CDATA[
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?
