Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

AROCHA v. SAUCEDA, 2:11-cv-2959 LKK KJN P. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140402793 Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 01, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 01, 2014
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On January 14, 2014, defendants Hart and Munoz filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Accordingly, on February 26, 2014, the undersigned recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted. On January 31, 2014, defendant Rogel filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Accordingly, on March
More

ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 14, 2014, defendants Hart and Munoz filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Accordingly, on February 26, 2014, the undersigned recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted. On January 31, 2014, defendant Rogel filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Accordingly, on March 7, 2014, the undersigned recommended that defendant Rogel's motion to dismiss be granted.

On March 13, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to stay this action due to mental health deterioration. Plaintiff also requested a thirty day extension of time to file oppositions to the motions to dismiss filed January 14, 2014 and January 31, 2014.

While plaintiff alleges that his mental health has deteriorated, he has provided no medical records to support this claim. Accordingly, the motion to stay is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff will be granted thirty days to file oppositions to the motions to dismiss.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to stay (ECF No. 108) is denied;

2. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 108) is granted; plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file his oppositions to defendants' motions to dismiss; defendants may file a reply within seven days thereafter;

3. The findings and recommendations addressing defendants' motions to dismiss (ECF No. 104 and 106) are vacated.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer