HARRELL v. HORNBROOK COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, 2:14-cv-1595 KJM GGH. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20160914b27
Visitors: 4
Filed: Sep. 12, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 12, 2016
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS , Magistrate Judge . On August 1, 2016, this court issued an Order in which it unequivocally stated that no party to this action was to file any further motions or requests unless it had first followed an emergency procedure laid out in the Order. The procedure required any party wishing to seek access to the court to first obtain permission by "making a request detailing the need for it" to which the opposing party could respond within five court days. Despite t
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS , Magistrate Judge . On August 1, 2016, this court issued an Order in which it unequivocally stated that no party to this action was to file any further motions or requests unless it had first followed an emergency procedure laid out in the Order. The procedure required any party wishing to seek access to the court to first obtain permission by "making a request detailing the need for it" to which the opposing party could respond within five court days. Despite th..
More
ORDER
GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge.
On August 1, 2016, this court issued an Order in which it unequivocally stated that no party to this action was to file any further motions or requests unless it had first followed an emergency procedure laid out in the Order. The procedure required any party wishing to seek access to the court to first obtain permission by "making a request detailing the need for it" to which the opposing party could respond within five court days.
Despite this Order Plaintiff has filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and purported to set it for hearing on September 22, 2016, ECF No. 97, and a Motion for a Stay without a hearing date. ECF No. 102. These actions are in direct violation of this court's order and the court will not calendar them for hearing or consider their merits at this time. Pending matters vacated from the Court's September 22, 2016, calendar by that order remain under submission and will be decided by the court without further argument.
Plaintiff is now ordered to show cause within 10 days of receipt of this order why he should not be held in contempt of court for failing to obey a direct order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
