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.

Lawrence Pamer v. Arnold Schwarzenegger

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 16, 2011

LAWRENCE PAMER,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge

/ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to stay these proceedings (Doc. 94). Plaintiff indicates he is currently in administrative segregation, is without his medication and legal files, and that his legal files may have been lost. He is therefore requesting this court stay these proceedings until such time as his situation improves.

The court does not find a stay of proceedings necessary at this time. However, given petitioner's current situation, the court will extend the time he has to file his objections to the pending findings and recommendations, which recommend defendants' motion to dismiss be granted and plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction be denied. If plaintiff finds he is unable to respond to the pending findings and recommendations within the time provided herein, he may submit another motion for additional time, upon a showing of good cause. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that detention in administrative segregation alone is insufficient reason for prolonged extensions of time. While the court may entertain additional requests for more time as needed, the court is unwilling to allow this case to languish. Only those requests which actually demonstrate good cause will be granted.

Good cause appearing therefore, plaintiff is granted 30 additional days in which to file objections to the pending findings and recommendations. The parties may file objections within 30 days of the date of this order. The parties are reminded that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal any order adopting the findings and recommendations. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110216

© 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.