Cloud v. California Department of Corrections, 2:17-cv-00339-GGH. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180619740
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jun. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 18, 2018
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff brings this prisoner civil rights case pro se and in forma pauperis. On June 13, 2018, defendant Daniel S. Wong filed a Motion for Summary Judgment that, if successful, would resolve the case as to the allegations against him. ECF No. 38. Plaintiff must file either an Opposition or a Statement of Non-Opposition to defendant Wong's Motion pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule No. 230(c). Because of plaintiff's situation
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff brings this prisoner civil rights case pro se and in forma pauperis. On June 13, 2018, defendant Daniel S. Wong filed a Motion for Summary Judgment that, if successful, would resolve the case as to the allegations against him. ECF No. 38. Plaintiff must file either an Opposition or a Statement of Non-Opposition to defendant Wong's Motion pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule No. 230(c). Because of plaintiff's situation t..
More
ORDER
GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff brings this prisoner civil rights case pro se and in forma pauperis. On June 13, 2018, defendant Daniel S. Wong filed a Motion for Summary Judgment that, if successful, would resolve the case as to the allegations against him. ECF No. 38. Plaintiff must file either an Opposition or a Statement of Non-Opposition to defendant Wong's Motion pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule No. 230(c). Because of plaintiff's situation the court will, however, give him additional time to complete the exercise, rather than the time prescribed by the Rule, should he need it.1 Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to adhere to the requirement of this Rule will result in a recommendation by this court that the matter be dismissed by the district court.
1. Plaintiff shall 30 days from the date of this Order to file either an Opposition or a Statement of Non-Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendant Daniel S. Wong;
2. Defendant Wong shall have 14 days from the date of service of the pleading filed by plaintiff to file his Reply Memorandum if he chooses to file one;
3. The Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a district court judge to this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Rule 230(c) measures the time for opposition or non-opposition from the at set for hearing by the moving party. Thus, in normal circumstances a responding party may have as little as 14 days from the service of the motion to file a response.
Source: Leagle
