UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 29, 2011
WILLIAM B. PRUITT,
CLARK, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER STRIKING MOTION AS PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE, AND SUA SPONTE GRANTING DEFENDANT BONILLA FIFTEEN DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO FILE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT
(Docs. 8 and 28)
Plaintiff William B. Pruitt, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 26, 2007. On April 28, 2011, Defendants Curtiss, Laura, Swimford, and Wan (Defendants) filed an ex parte motion to quash service on behalf of Defendant Bonilla. Defendants cited to no legal authority for their motion, which is one ordinarily brought as a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), and this failure deprives Plaintiff and the Court of adequate notice of the grounds supporting the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1). In addition, the declaration submitted by Defendants in support of their motion is inadmissible because it is unsigned and it fails to comply with Local Rule 131(f).
The motion shall be stricken from the record as procedurally defective. Because Defendant Bonilla's response to Plaintiff's amended complaint is due on or before May 2, 2011, the Court will sua sponte grant a fifteen-day extension of time to file a response to the amended complaint.
Accordingly, the motion to quash is HEREBY STRICKEN on the ground that it is procedurally defective, and Defendant Bonilla is GRANTED fifteen (15) days within which to file a response to Plaintiff's amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.