Morgan v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 28

ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 6/2/2011. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/2/2011: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ahm, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
12

TERRY MORGAN,

13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

15

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al,

16
Defendants.
17

No: C 10-4231 JSC

ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS AND
BRIEFING SCHEDULE

____________________________________
18
19

This case was reassigned to this Magistrate Judge upon the retirement of the
20

previously-assigned judge, Magistrate Judge James Larson. According to the docket, on
21

January 13, 2011, Defendant City and County of San Francisco filed a motion for
22

judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 8), and on March 22, 2011 the individual defendants
23

filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 21). Plaintiff proceeding in pro per filed a document
24

styled as a motion to proceed or settle on January 18, 2011 (Dkt. No. 10) and on May 2,
25

2011 a document titled a motion for a more definite statement (Dkt. No. 25).
26

With respect to Defendants’ motions, it is not clear if Plaintiff intended the pleadings
27

he has already filed with the Court, including his motion for a more definite statement, to
28

constitute his response to Defendants’ motions. Accordingly, if Plaintiff desires to file an

ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS

1

additional response to Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion to

2

dismiss, he shall do so on or before June 23, 2011. Defendants’ reply, if any, shall be

3

filed on or before June 30, 2011. The Court will take Defendants’ motions under

4

submission at that time.

5

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed or settle is DENIED. The next step in these proceedings

6

is for the Court to decide Defendants’ pending motions. Plaintiff’s motion for a more

7

definite statement, to the extent he intended it to be a separate motion rather than (or in

8

addition to) a response to Defendants’ motions, is also DENIED, although the Court will

9

consider the pleading in deciding Defendants’ pending motions.

10

The Clerk shall terminate motions nos. 10 and 25.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
DATED: June 2, 2011
13
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS

2