VALADEZ v. GILL, 2:13-cv-1532 KJM AC P. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20140515890
Visitors: 6
Filed: May 14, 2014
Latest Update: May 14, 2014
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. By order filed on April 15, 2014, the court ordered defendant C. Wright, personally served on February 26, 2014, to show cause within fourteen days why he/she should not be found to be in default for not having responded to the complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. 12(a)(1)(A), within twenty-one days of service of the summons and co
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. By order filed on April 15, 2014, the court ordered defendant C. Wright, personally served on February 26, 2014, to show cause within fourteen days why he/she should not be found to be in default for not having responded to the complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. 12(a)(1)(A), within twenty-one days of service of the summons and com..
More
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
By order filed on April 15, 2014, the court ordered defendant C. Wright, personally served on February 26, 2014, to show cause within fourteen days why he/she should not be found to be in default for not having responded to the complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. 12(a)(1)(A), within twenty-one days of service of the summons and complaint. Defendant Wright has now filed an answer. However, this defendant has yet to show cause for the delayed responsive pleading. Defendant Wright is directed once more, this time within seven (7) days, to show cause for the tardy filing of his answer.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
