Filed: Apr. 09, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 09, 2014
Summary: ORDER GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge. Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Milton O. Crawford's Motion for Judge Reassignment (ECF No. 152) and Motion for Appeal (ECF No. 158) regarding the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 154) entered on October 11, 2013. Plaintiff's Motion for Judge Reassignment (ECF No. 152), was included as part of his Opposition (ECF No. 151) to the Minutes of Proceedings (ECF No. 143) for the hearing conducted on September 27, 2013. In that document, Plainti
Summary: ORDER GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge. Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Milton O. Crawford's Motion for Judge Reassignment (ECF No. 152) and Motion for Appeal (ECF No. 158) regarding the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 154) entered on October 11, 2013. Plaintiff's Motion for Judge Reassignment (ECF No. 152), was included as part of his Opposition (ECF No. 151) to the Minutes of Proceedings (ECF No. 143) for the hearing conducted on September 27, 2013. In that document, Plaintif..
More
ORDER
GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge.
Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Milton O. Crawford's Motion for Judge Reassignment (ECF No. 152) and Motion for Appeal (ECF No. 158) regarding the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 154) entered on October 11, 2013.
Plaintiff's Motion for Judge Reassignment (ECF No. 152), was included as part of his Opposition (ECF No. 151) to the Minutes of Proceedings (ECF No. 143) for the hearing conducted on September 27, 2013. In that document, Plaintiff objects to the Court's rulings at the hearing, as memorialized by the written order entered on January 23, 2014 (ECF No. 186). On the basis of these objections, Plaintiff repeats his prior request for reassignment of the presiding judge. (ECF No. 152.) Having reviewed Plaintiff's motion, and finding no new grounds for reconsideration of the Court's previous denial of the same request (see Mins. of Proceedings, ECF No. 143; Order, Jan. 23, 2014, ECF No. 186), the Court finds no good cause to grant Plaintiff's motion. Accordingly, the Motion for Judge Reassignment (ECF No. 152) is DENIED.
In his Motion for Appeal (ECF No. 158), Plaintiff requests review of the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 154) entered on October 11, 2013, by Magistrate Judge George W. Foley, in which Judge Foley lifted the stay of all deadlines, and ordered that discovery and other deadlines shall proceed. (ECF No. 154.) As the basis for his motion, Plaintiff argues that the stay should remain in place while his Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 32) and Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 57) remain pending. The Court finds no grounds to grant Plaintiff's motion on this basis, however, because the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 32) was granted on March 15, 2013, and the Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 57) was denied on May 20, 2013. Therefore, the Court had ruled upon both motions over five months prior to Judge Foley's Scheduling Order (ECF No. 154), which was entered on October 11, 2013. Accordingly, the Motion for Appeal (ECF No. 158) is DENIED.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Judge Reassignment (ECF No. 152) and Motion for Appeal (ECF No. 158) are DENIED.
