BONNEAU v. THOMAS, 3:12-CV-123-PA. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20120224d20
Visitors: 12
Filed: Feb. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 23, 2012
Summary: ORDER OWEN M. PANNER, District Judge. On February 9, 2012, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration pertaining to the court's denial of his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. The Motion for Reconsideration improperly captions two separate civil cases. For this reason, the court denies the Motion as defective and improperly docketed. Even if the Motion were not defective in this respect, petitioner would not be entitled to reconsideration of the court's Orde
Summary: ORDER OWEN M. PANNER, District Judge. On February 9, 2012, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration pertaining to the court's denial of his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. The Motion for Reconsideration improperly captions two separate civil cases. For this reason, the court denies the Motion as defective and improperly docketed. Even if the Motion were not defective in this respect, petitioner would not be entitled to reconsideration of the court's Order..
More
ORDER
OWEN M. PANNER, District Judge.
On February 9, 2012, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration pertaining to the court's denial of his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. The Motion for Reconsideration improperly captions two separate civil cases. For this reason, the court denies the Motion as defective and improperly docketed. Even if the Motion were not defective in this respect, petitioner would not be entitled to reconsideration of the court's Order (#15).
On February 14, 2012, petitioner filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which is not contemplated by the Scheduling Order. Because this filing is not in accordance with the Scheduling Order (#17) issued on February 7, 2012, and because a Rule 56 motion is more appropriate in the non-habeas civil context, the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Petitioner is ADVISED that, absent limited extensions of time, must strictly follow the court's Scheduling Order.
CONCLUSION
Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (#18) and Motion for Summary Judgment (#20) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
