RODRIGUEZ v. VEGA, 2:15-cv-0158 GGH PS. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20151215872
Visitors: 11
Filed: Dec. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 14, 2015
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. 1 Presently before the court is plaintiff's "second motion in limine to admit evidence; and; stipulation and order to dismiss," filed November 30, 2015. The request seeks to admit evidence which plaintiff claims demonstrates his need for public assistance and that his circumstances have worsened. This court's order of November 9, 2015 addressed th
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. 1 Presently before the court is plaintiff's "second motion in limine to admit evidence; and; stipulation and order to dismiss," filed November 30, 2015. The request seeks to admit evidence which plaintiff claims demonstrates his need for public assistance and that his circumstances have worsened. This court's order of November 9, 2015 addressed the..
More
ORDER
GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1
Presently before the court is plaintiff's "second motion in limine to admit evidence; and; stipulation and order to dismiss," filed November 30, 2015. The request seeks to admit evidence which plaintiff claims demonstrates his need for public assistance and that his circumstances have worsened. This court's order of November 9, 2015 addressed the matters sought to be raised by plaintiff's motion, which would not change the result of that order.2 Therefore, the request is denied as moot. More importantly, in the above titled motion, plaintiff has requested dismissal of this action without prejudice, the granting of which would most certainly moot his motion in any event.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's "motion in limine to admit evidence," filed November 30, 2015, (ECF No. 32), is denied as moot.
2. Defendants notify this court, within seven days, whether they have any objection to the dismissal of this action without prejudice. Should defendants fail to respond, plaintiff's request will be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).
FootNotes
1. This action is before the undersigned pursuant to the parties' consent to proceed before a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
2. Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied in part and plaintiff was directed to file a second amended complaint within 28 days of that order. (ECF No. 29).
Source: Leagle
