IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 15, 2010
RICHARD BASSETT, PLAINTIFF,
E. CALLISON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file and serve an opposition and a reply to defendants' reply to plaintiff's opposition to the September 30, 2010 motion to dismiss. First, plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on October 20, 2010. Second, plaintiff is not permitted to file a reply to defendants' reply. The Local Rules contemplate the filing of a motion, opposition and a reply. Local Rule 230(l). The motion to dismiss is now fully briefed and submitted for decision. No further filings are required or permitted in connection with the pending motion to dismiss. Therefore, plaintiff's requests will be denied.
On October 27, 2010, plaintiff filed his third request for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff's previous requests were filed on April 23, 2010, and October 6, 2010. All requests were denied. In light of those orders, plaintiff's third request will be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's November 1, 2010 and November 10, 2010 motions for extensions of time are denied. (Dkt. Nos. 64 & 65.)
2. Plaintiff's October 27, 2010 request (Dkt. No. 63) is denied.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.