IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 24, 2010
TIMOTHY S. DAUBERT, PLAINTIFF,
CITY OF LINDSAY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and has filed the instant Motion for Clarification on June 9, 2010. (Doc. 21). Specifically, Plaintiff is inquiring how he requests a default judgment because he contends that Defendant did not timely answer the Complaint, or contact him to prepare a Joint Scheduling Conference Report for the Scheduling Conference that was held on June 9, 2010.
As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff is advised that the Court cannot give him legal advice. Therefore, Plaintiff shall refrain from filing motions requesting that the Court answer questions related to his case. Plaintiff shall refer to the First and Second Informational Orders issued contemporaneously with this order to address any questions he may have. (Docs. 5 and 11). Also, Plaintiff is advised that the Complaint was served on Defendant on January 7, 2010. (Doc. 14). Defendant filed a Waiver of Service on January 15, 2010. (Doc. 14). Therefore, Defendant's Answer was due on March 8, 2010. Id.; See also. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(d)(3).
Defendant timely filed an answer on February 12, 2010. (Doc. 15). Therefore, there is no basis to Plaintiff's allegations that Defendant failed to timely respond to the Complaint.
Similarly, Plaintiff argues that Defendant did not contact him to participate in the preparation of the Joint Scheduling Conference Report in violation of this Court order and the Local Rules of the Court. However, the Scheduling Conference was not held on June 9, 2010, so there was no prejudice to Plaintiff.
Defendant is advised that both parties are required to participate in the preparation of the Joint Scheduling Conference Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.