Foti v. County of Marin et al

Filing 24

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying 21 Motion for Entry to Courtroom; denying 22 Motion to Continue. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT-JOHN FOTI, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF MARIN et al., Defendants. /

No. C 09-04167 CRB ORDER DENYING (1) MOTION FOR ENTRY TO COURTROOM AND (2) MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

The Court is in receipt of two motions from Plaintiff Robert-John Foti. The first, captioned a "Motion for Entry to Courtroom," states that Plaintiff is "NOT A TERRORIST," but does not have state identification and has therefore missed hearings in a different case not before this Court. The Motion asks the Court to compel enforcement of Plaintiff's right to attend all hearings. Plaintiff has presented no evidence that he has had difficulty attending any hearings in this case, nor that the security procedures in this courthouse are operating unfairly as to him. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff's Motion; if Plaintiff encounters difficulty accessing his hearings, he is of course free to raise this issue again. The second motion is one for Continuance And Not Served Parties, in which Plaintiff asserts that his service of some defendants was delayed, for various reasons. Plaintiff writes, "LATE MARCH OR APRIL MAY BE A GOOD TIME TO HOLD ANY HEARING." Though Plaintiff did not specify precisely what he seeks to continue, the Court notes that

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendant Beverly Wood, whose Motion to Dismiss is on calendar for Friday, January 15, 2010, has apparently waived formal service. In addition, Wood's counsel appeared at the case management conference held on January 8, 2010. No other defendant is a party to Wood's Motion. The parties have both briefed that Motion. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2010

CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\CRBALL\2009\4167\order re two motions.wpd

2