IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 7, 2011
CASEY D. MAYER, PLAINTIFF,
LOUIS REDIX, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff has requested a stay pending his imminent transfer to another facility. Plaintiff states that he is not allowed to know when he is leaving or where he will be sent but assures the court that he will provide immediate notice of his new address upon his arrival. In an order filed on December 8, 2010, the court directed the U.S. Marshal to serve process upon the defendants. At this point, no executed waivers of service have been filed and no defendant has yet appeared in this action. Once defendants have appeared and should they file a response to the amended complaint before plaintiff has filed a change of address notice, the court will consider this request for a stay as a motion for an extension of time and will rule on it at that point. For now, the motion will be vacated without prejudice as premature.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's January 31, 2011 (docket # 17) motion for a stay, construed as a motion for an extension of time to respond to any filing by defendants, is vacated without prejudice as premature.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.