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.

Aidnik v. California Department of Corrections

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 16, 2009

JEFF C. AIDNIK, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 26, 2009, plaintiff consented to this court's jurisdiction. Docket No. 4. However, on October 21, 2009, plaintiff declined this court's jurisdiction. Docket No. 25. On the same day, plaintiff filed a document entitled "Motion: To Set Aside Order." He asks that an unspecified order be "set aside as i request in the beginning for this to be heard by the district judge in and at the start of this case's." Docket No. 26 (reproduced as in original).

When plaintiff revoked his consent to this court's jurisdiction, a district judge was assigned to the case. Docket No. 27. Plaintiff's motion suggests that he is seeking to have the magistrate judge removed from the case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 302(c)(17), this court will continue to hear non-dispositive and dispositive motions, though the latter will be addressed on findings and recommendations and then referred to the assigned district judge.

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to respond to defendants' discovery requests pursuant to the court's order of October 15, 2009. He alleges that he is able to visit the law library only two days a week and is struggling with the medical terminology in the requests. Defendant objects although the basis of the objection is not entirely clear; it may be that he does not believe he will have sufficient time to prepare any motion to compel should the extension be granted. Because he has not described the nature of his opposition with specificity, defendant's opposition does not defeat plaintiff's showing of good cause.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. To the extent plaintiff seeks to have the undersigned removed from any proceedings in this case, his motion to have this court's orders set aside (docket no. 26) is denied;

2. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (Docket No. 30) is granted; and

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to respond to defendant's discovery requests.

20091216

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



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.