Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gonzalez v. Scharffenberg, 1:16-cv-01675-DAD-EPG (PC). (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180410713 Visitors: 10
Filed: Apr. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 09, 2018
Summary: ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Mario Gonzalez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On April 6, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff's objections to the Court's findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 109). According to Defendants, the objections should be stricken because they
More

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE

Mario Gonzalez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On April 6, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff's objections to the Court's findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 109). According to Defendants, the objections should be stricken because they are improper and defamatory.

Under Local Rule 230(l), Plaintiff has twenty-one days after the date of service of Defendants' motion to file and serve his opposition to the motion.

IT IS ORDERED that, if Plaintiff chooses to file an opposition to Defendants' motion, Plaintiff shall file evidence that the Office of the Attorney General was involved in the denial of his medical care. Failure to file this evidence will result in the Court granting Defendants' motion to strike.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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