Millner v. Dileo, 1:17-cv-00507-LJO-SAB (PC). (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20191115790
Visitors: 7
Filed: Nov. 13, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 13, 2019
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY ACTION (ECF No. 64) STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff James W. Millner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendants DiLeo, Ulit, and Spaeth, in their individual capacity, for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, based on Plaintiff's wrist injury. Currently
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY ACTION (ECF No. 64) STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff James W. Millner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendants DiLeo, Ulit, and Spaeth, in their individual capacity, for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, based on Plaintiff's wrist injury. Currently b..
More
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY ACTION
(ECF No. 64)
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff James W. Millner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendants DiLeo, Ulit, and Spaeth, in their individual capacity, for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, based on Plaintiff's wrist injury.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to stay action, filed on October 21, 2019. (ECF No. 64.) In his motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court stay this action and extend the December 2, 2019 dispositive motion deadline for 28 weeks because he has developed dementia and is currently undergoing assessment and treatment at California Health Care Facility and because he will be undergoing additional surgery on his wrist.
In this case, the Court finds that it is appropriate to require Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff's motion to stay action. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that, within seven (7) days from the date of service of this order, Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff's motion to stay action, (ECF No. 64). Plaintiff should not file any reply to Defendants' response absent further order from this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
