Asberry v. Relevante, 1:16-cv-01741-DAD-MJS (PC). (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180403841
Visitors: 7
Filed: Apr. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 02, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF NO. 102, 103) MICHAEL J. SENG , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The action proceeds on the following claims: an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against defendants Lozovoy and Relevante, an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim against defendants Ferris and Go
Summary: ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF NO. 102, 103) MICHAEL J. SENG , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The action proceeds on the following claims: an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against defendants Lozovoy and Relevante, an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim against defendants Ferris and God..
More
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF NO. 102, 103)
MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on the following claims: an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against defendants Lozovoy and Relevante, an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim against defendants Ferris and Godfrey, and a First Amendment retaliation claim against defendants Ferris and Godfrey.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's February 23, 2018 motion requesting an extension of time to reply to Defendants' oppositions. (ECF No. 102.) Plaintiff filed another such motion on February 28, 2018. (ECF No. 103.) However, the Court previously granted Plaintiff an extension of time, and he timely filed his replies on March 8, 2012. (ECF Nos. 106-108.)
Accordingly, the motions for extension of time are HEREBY DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
