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.

Matthew Lucas Frazier v. Redding Police Dept.

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


December 5, 2012

MATTHEW LUCAS FRAZIER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
REDDING POLICE DEPT., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Allison Claire United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. By order filed on November 19, 2012, a number of plaintiff's then-pending motions, primarily concerned with discovery matters, were adjudicated. Shortly prior to the issuance of November 19th order, plaintiff filed additional motions. In the motion at Docket No. 67, plaintiff seeks a ruling as to motions he filed at Doc. No. 47 and at Doc. No. 60; in the motion at Doc. No. 71, plaintiff seeks a ruling as to a request he filed at Doc. No. 61. However, the motions for which plaintiff sought adjudication were addressed in the order of November 19, 2012. Therefore, plaintiff's motions at Doc. Nos. 67 and 71 will be denied as moot.

Plaintiff's November 16, 2012 motion for a protective order asks the court to invoke the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to direct non-parties at Pleasant Valley State Prison to provide him copies of documents he seeks to submit in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. That issue has been rendered at least temporarily moot, as has the request for a further extension of time to file petitioner's opposition to the summary judgment motion. The court vacated the summary judgment motion at issue in the November 19, 2012 order, subject to its being re-noticed once defendants have served plaintiff with specified discovery. The denial of this motion will be without prejudice.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motions, filed on November 15, 2012 (Doc. Nos. 67 and 71), are denied as moot.

2. Plaintiff's November 16, 2012 (Doc. No. 72) motion for a protective order and/or further extension of time regarding filing his opposition to the now-vacated summary judgment motion is denied without prejudice for the reasons stated above.

20121205

© 1992-2012 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.