Castellanos v. Aramark Corporation et al

Filing 29

ORDER Denying as moot 27 Motion to request for an Extension of time to Apply for Attorney; and Denying as moot 28 Motion for additional time to seek Legal Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 11/1/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DXS)

Download PDF
Castellanos v. Aramark Corporation et al Doc. 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Before the court is a one-line request (Dkt. #27) from the Plaintiff for "more time, about month, to have to aplica for attorney", and another request for "30 additional days to find legal counsel for this matter." The plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis which means he did not have to pay the filing fee because he could not afford it. He is also appearing pro se, which means he is representing himself. Plaintiff, may, but is not required to retain an attorney to represent him. A discovery plan and scheduling order has been entered which establishes deadlines for the parties to complete discovery, designate experts and file motions with the court. However, no deadline has been imposed for plaintiff to decide whether or not to hire an attorney. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's requests (Dkt. #27, 28) are DENIED as moot. Dated this 1st day of November, 2010. ___________________________________ PEGGY A. LEEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOAQUIN G. CASTELLANOS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ARAMARK CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Case No. 2:09-cv-01378-JCM-PAL ORDER (Mot. for More Time - Dkt. #27) (Mot. For More Time - Dkt. #28)

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?