Moore v. Tesluk, 2:16-cv-2268 GEB KJN P. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180223b12
Visitors: 24
Filed: Feb. 22, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2018
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On January 18, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to compel addressed to defendants Tesluk, Nguyen and Fox. (ECF No. 68.) Defendants Tesluk and Nguyen filed oppositions to the motion to compel. (ECF Nos. 69, 71.) Defendant Fox did not respond to the motion to compel. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days of the date
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On January 18, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to compel addressed to defendants Tesluk, Nguyen and Fox. (ECF No. 68.) Defendants Tesluk and Nguyen filed oppositions to the motion to compel. (ECF Nos. 69, 71.) Defendant Fox did not respond to the motion to compel. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days of the date ..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 18, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to compel addressed to defendants Tesluk, Nguyen and Fox. (ECF No. 68.) Defendants Tesluk and Nguyen filed oppositions to the motion to compel. (ECF Nos. 69, 71.) Defendant Fox did not respond to the motion to compel.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days of the date of this order, defendant Fox shall show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to respond to plaintiff's motion to compel.
Source: Leagle
