IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 1, 2010
MARVIN GLENN HOLLIS, PLAINTIFF,
M.S. DOWNING, 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 re-serve his oppositions on defendants and for the court to find his oppositions timely-filed under the mailbox rule. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-72, 275 (1988). Plaintiff's oppositions were timely filed and defendants have received plaintiff's oppositions via CM/ECF electronic filing. Therefore, plaintiff is not required to re-serve the oppositions on defendants. Defendants' motions now stand submitted and plaintiff shall file no further documents in connection with these pending motions.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's November 15, 2010 motion is partially granted.
2. Plaintiff's oppositions are deemed timely filed. Plaintiff is not required to reserve the oppositions.
3. Defendants' motions stand submitted. Plaintiff shall file no further documents in connection with these pending motions.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.