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.

Claudell Earl Martin v. Jeanne S. Woodford

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 4, 2011

CLAUDELL EARL MARTIN,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JEANNE S. WOODFORD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION (Doc. 88)

Plaintiff Claudell Earl Martin ("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 June 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed a "Notice of Motion to Dismiss Defendants[sic] Late Dispositive Motion." (Doc. #88.) Plaintiff's motion appears to consist of objections to the Court's orders granting Defendants extensions of time to file their dispositive motion. Plaintiff complains that the April 29, 2010 motion granting Defendants an extension of time incorrectly stated that the extension was Defendants' first extension of time when it was actually Defendants' second extension of time. The Court granted Defendants another extension on June 14, 2010. (Doc. #87.) Plaintiff also sets forth various arguments as to why the Court miscalculated the amount of time Defendants should have to file their motion.

The June 14, 2010, court order explicitly set June 28, 2010, as the deadline for Defendants to file their dispositive motion. Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on June 28, 2010. Defendants' motion is therefore timely. Plaintiff's motion appears to request reconsideration of the Court's June 14, 2010 order granting Defendants additional time to file a dispositive motion or reconsideration of the previous court orders granting Defendants additional time. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to set forth any persuasive reasons why reconsideration is appropriate. See Local Rule 230(j).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's June 15, 2010 motion is DENIED. Defendants' June 28, 2010 motion for summary judgment is deemed timely.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ie14hj

20110104

© 1992-2011 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.