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.

Roberto A. Sotelo v. T. Birring

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 25, 2011

ROBERTO A. SOTELO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
T. BIRRING, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

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

(Docs. 34 and 41)

ORDER RELIEVING PLAINTIFF OF OBLIGATION TO RESPOND TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PENDING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND AS MOOT

(Doc. 47)

Plaintiff Roberto A. Sotelo, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 10, 2008. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's amended complaint, filed February 24, 2009, against Defendants Birring, Das, Diep, and Coleman for acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On November 1, 2010, the Court issued an order referring this matter to the Pro Bono Program of the Eastern District of California for the appointment of voluntary counsel to represent Plaintiff in this action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). The Court has been informed that counsel is still being sought, but an appointment should be secured in the near future.

In light of the pendency of this unresolved issue, Plaintiff is relieved of his obligation to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendants Birring and Das's motion for summary judgment, which was filed on January 25, 2011.*fn1 Plaintiff's second motion for an extension of time to file a response, filed March 25, 2011, shall be denied as moot in light of this order. Once counsel is appointed to represent Plaintiff, the Court will review the case and issue an appropriate order, which may include requesting the submission of status reports from the parties regarding further discovery and motions.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff is relieved of his obligation to file a response to Defendants Birring and Das's motion for summary judgment pending the appointment of counsel to represent Plaintiff; and

2. Plaintiff's second motion for an extension of time to file a response to Defendants Birring and Das's motion for summary judgment, filed March 25, 2011, is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ie14hj


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.