Filed: Oct. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 24, 2014
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE (ECF No. 35) ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 15) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge. I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action originally filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on November 21, 2013 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter proc
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE (ECF No. 35) ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 15) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge. I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action originally filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on November 21, 2013 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter proce..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE (ECF No. 35)
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 15) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action originally filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on November 21, 2013 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter proceeds on First Amended Complaint deliberate indifference claims against Defendants Biol, Wofford and Zamora.
The case arose while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Avenal State Prison ("ASP"). On April 25, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of improper venue and failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff sought and received an extension of time to and including July 5, 2014 in which to file opposition to Defendants' motion. (ECF No. 26.)
On June 24, 2014, rather than filing an opposition to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed a motion to change venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, as well as a request for further extension of time to oppose Defendants' motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 27.)
On August 27, 2014, the case was ordered transferred to this Court, without a ruling on Plaintiff's request for further extension of time. (ECF No. 30.)
On September 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed in the Central District a motion to change venue to the Eastern District; the motion appears to re-plead his claims. (ECF No. 35.)
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff's September 15, 2014, motion to change venue is rendered moot by the August 27, 2014 transfer order.
Plaintiff has not filed opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss. The September 15th motion to change venue, which appears to include pleading language and related argument, is not qualifying opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Court finds good cause to extend nunc pro tunc the current July 5, 2014 deadline for Plaintiff to file his opposition to Defendants' motion.
III. ORDER
For the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for change of venue (ECF No. 35) is moot and DENIED,
2. Plaintiff shall file opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss not later than thirty (30) days after service of this Order, and
3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the matter may be dismissed, with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
