UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 26, 2010
THOMAS MOORE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng ci4d6TED States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CLARIFY
(ECF No. 74)
Plaintiff George Hamilton ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed a document containing three motions: (1) a motion for extension of time; (2) a motion for a protective order; and (3) a motion to disqualify District Judge Wanger from proceeding over this action. (ECF No. 69.) The Court granted Plaintiff's motion for an extension on November 8, 2010. (ECF No. 70). The Court denied Plaintiff's motion for a protective order on November 12, 2010 and den5ed the motion to disqualify on November 15, 2010. (ECF Nos. 71 & 72.)
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for the Court to c3arify its November 8, 2010 order granting Plaintiff an extension of time to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 74.) Plaintiff argues that the Court has "placed Plaintiff in a [Stressful Catch-22], based on the Court not addressing, correcting, and resolving" his motion for protective order and motion to disqualify. Plaintiff states that all extensions of time are "toothless and empty" until the court addresses the outstanding motions.
As stated above, however, the Court has already denied both the motion for a protective order and the motion to disqualify. If Plaintiff has not received the Court's order denying either of those motions, he should so notify the Court and it can send additional copies. The Court cannot discern any additional reason to clarify its prior rulings. The orders addressing those motion speak for themselves.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Clarify is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.