Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Noble v. Adams

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 3, 2009

STEVEN JOSEPH NOBLE IV, PLAINTIFF,
v.
D. ADAMS AND D. CUEVAS, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS AS MOOT DUE TO VACATUR OF TRIAL SCHEDULE AND PENDING APPEAL (Docs. 165, 166, 168, 169, 170)

Plaintiff Steven Joseph Noble IV ("plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on the amended complaint, filed May 12, 2003, against defendants D. Adams and D. Cuevas ("defendants"), on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment access to exercise claims for the period between January 31, 2002 and July 31, 2002. (Doc. 8.)

On June 29, 2009, the court issued a Scheduling Order setting the trial in this action for October 20, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. before Judge Anthony W. Ishii. (Doc. 155.) On September 21, 2009, due to consent by the parties, this action was reassigned to Magistrate Sandra M. Snyder to conduct all further proceedings, including trial and entry of judgment. (Doc. 160.) On October 5, 2009, plaintiff filed five motions related to the upcoming trial.*fn1 On October 6, 2009, the court vacated the trial schedule pending ongoing settlement proceedings between the parties. (Doc. 162.) On October 9, 2009, defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit, appealing the court's September 9, 2009 order denying reconsideration of the order denying defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 171.) On October 30, 2009, defendants filed written notice that plaintiff's recent settlement offer had been declined. (Doc. 174.)

In light of the fact that the trial schedule has been vacated in this action, and defendants' appeal is pending at the Ninth Circuit, plaintiff's motions related to the trial are moot and shall be denied as such.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff five motions filed on October 5, 2009, as described in this order, are DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.